BR  121  .M42  1910 
Mathews,  Shailer,  1863-1941 
The  gospel  and  the  modern 
man 


^ 


I^aberforti  ilt&rarg  lectures 


THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE 
MODERN  MAN 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK   •    BOSTON  •    CHICAGO 
ATLANTA   •    SAN    FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON  •  BOMBAY  •  CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


THE  GOSPEL  AxND  THE 
MODERN  MAN 

JUN::3  19 
SHAILER   MATHEWS  ^--?'i'AL  ^^^ 

PROFESSOR  OF   HISTORICAL  AND   COMPARATIVE  THEOLOGY 

IN   THE  UNIVERSITY   OF   CHICAGO;    AUTHOR   OF   "THE 

SOCIAL   TEACHING   OF  JESUS,"  "THE   MESSIANIC 

HOPE   IN   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT,"  "THE 

CHURCH   AND   THE  CHANGING 

ORDER,"   ETC. 


THE   MACMILLAN    COMPANY 
1910 

Aii  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1910, 
By  the  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published  May,  1910. 


NnrfajooU  iPreaa 

J.  8.  Gushing  Co.  —  Berwick  «fe  Smith  Co. 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


CONTENTS 

PART   I 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

CHAPTER  I 

PAGB 

The  Gospel  of  the  New  Testament        .        .        .        .        i 

The  gospel  in  our  modern  society.  I.  The  question 
of  method.  The  distinction  between  Christianity  as  a 
contemporary  religion  and  the  gospel.  The  method  of 
a  positive  evangelical  theology.  —  II.  The  gospel  as  con- 
tained in  the  New  Testament,  i .  In  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
The  teaching  of  Jesus.  Place  of  Apocalyptic  in  his 
teaching.  His  messianic  self-consciousness.  2.  The 
teaching  of  the  apostles.  Christ  as  a  deliverer  from 
,  Satan,  sin,  and  death.  3.  Is  there  more  than  one  gospel 
in  the  New  Testament?  The  relation  of  Paul  to  Jesus 
one  of  elaboration  rather  than  of  fundamental  difference. 
4.  The  function  of  Apocalyptic.  —  III.  The  gospel  in  its 
New  Testament  form  involves  historical  elements,  i.  The 
historical  experiences  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles.  2.  The 
gospel  as  the  product  of  historical  development: 
(«)  Messianism  as  a  world-view ;  (<5)  Two  final  thought- 
forces  of  the  Jewish  social  mind  ;  (<:)  Sacrifice  ;  (^)  So- 
cial ideals  of  the  ancient  world.  —  IV.  The  gospel  in  the 
New  Testament  although  eschatological  not  wholly 
other-worldly. 

CHAPTER   II 
The  Modern  Man 35 

Elements  common  to  the  New  Testament  and  modern 
times.      I.    Four  fundamental    differences   between   the 

vii 


Vlll  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

two  periods,  i.  The  modern  age  primarily  scientific  and 
controlled  by  the  conception  of  process.  The  struggle 
toward  free  personality.  The  supremacy  of  the  historical 
spirit.  2.  God  now  conceived  of  as  immanent  in  uni- 
versal process  rather  than  as  a  monarch.  The  question 
of  miracle.  3.  The  modern  world  filled  with  a  sense  of 
social  solidarity.  Differences  between  such  conceptions 
and  the  social  inequalities  of  the  New  Testament  period. 
4.  The  modern  world  demands  a  scientific  and  empirical 
basis  of  truth  as  contrasted  with  authority  and  meta- 
physics. Universality  of  this  attitude  of  mind.  Diffi- 
culties arising  from  these  four  classes  of  differences.  — 
II.  Who  is  the  modern  man?  i.  Not  necessarily  con- 
temporary persons.  2.  Nor  merely  the  man  in  revolt 
against  the  past.  3.  The  modern  man  is  he  who  is  con- 
trolled by  the  forces  making  To-morrow,  —  III.  Objec- 
tions to  this  definition.  I.  It  gives  too  little  prominence 
to  theological  reconstruction.  2.  It  gives  too  much 
prominence  to  theology. 


CHAPTER   III 

The  Content  of  the  Gospel 63 

Why  should  we  attempt  to  bring  the  gospel  rather  than 
a  revised  Christian  system  to  the  modern  man?  I.  Two 
current  methods  of  adjusting  the  gospel  to  our  modern 
age.  I.  The  method  of  literalism  and  its  dangers.  2.  The 
method  of  a  philosophy  of  religion  indifferent  to  the 
New  Testament.  —  II.  The  method  of  historical  resolu- 
tion and  interpretative  equivalents.  I.  The  method  in 
general.  2.  Messianism  as  the  interpretative  and  syste- 
matizing concept.  3.  Result  of  such  process  as  express- 
ing the  content  of  the  gospel.  4.  The  content  of  the 
gospel  one  of  life  rather  than  of  philosophy.  —  III.  Doc- 
trine making  as  a  social  process.  The  method  of  finding 
equivalents  for  the  constructive  and  interpretative  con- 
ception of  the  New  Testament,  i.  The  equivalent  for 
the  sovereignty  of  God.     2.  The   equivalent  for  escha- 


CONTENTS  IX 


PAGE 


tology  as  a  method  of  portraying:  {a)  the  teleology 
of  social  evolution ;  (3)  personal  immortality  and  resur- 
rection ;  (<:)  causality  in  the  moral  order.  3.  The 
equivalent  for  messianic  salvation.  —  IV.  The  gospel  as 
a  message  of  salvation,  an  exposition  of  the  possibilities 
of  the  spiritual  life  and  order.  Forecast  of  further  dis- 
cussion. 


PART   II 

THE  REASONABLENESS  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

CHAPTER  IV 

Jesus  the  Christ 91 

The  gospel  conceives  of  Jesus  as  primarily  a  savior 
rather  than  a  teacher  ;  as  historical  rather  than  as  ideal. 
I.  The  gospel  as  amenable  to  the  laws  governing  histori- 
cal investigation.  I.  Universal  recognition  of  the  his- 
torical aspect  of  the  gospel.  Radical  criticism.  2.  The 
gospels  as  historical  documents.  3.  The  gospels  as 
records  of  primitive  Christian  faith  rather  than  of  objec- 
tive facts.  The  case  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  —  II.  The 
Jesus  of  history,  i.  In  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  2.  In  the 
Pauline  literature.  3.  In  the  Johannine  literature.  Gen- 
eral conclusion.  —  III.  The  Christ  of  experience,  i.  The 
content  of  the  term  "  Christ."  2.  Jesus  as  the  embodi- 
ment of  the  absolute  moral  supremacy  of  the  spiritual 
life.  In  what  sense  he  was  sinless.  3.  Jesus  as  the 
object  of  religious  worship.  4.  An  existential  conception 
of  the  person  of  Christ  demanded  by  judgment  of  his 
moral  worth.  The  New  Testament  explanations  of  his 
person.  —  IV.  Modern  equivalents  of  the  Hellenistic  doc- 
trine of  the  two  natures.  A  Christological  creed  inevita- 
ble for  the  modern  man.  Evangelicalism  as  distinguished 
from  orthodoxy. 


X  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  V 

PAGE 

The  Love  of  the  God  of  Law 139 

The  universal  sense  of  weakness.  I.  The  problem  of 
physical  evil.  i.  Satan  as  an  explanation  of  evil.  2.  The 
immanence  of  God  and  evil.  —  IL  Is  God  Love  ?  i .  The 
prior  question  as  to  the  existence  of  God.  2.  The  prob- 
lem of  evil:  (i)  The  answer  of  Christian  Science; 
(2)  The  answer  of  Jesus.  3.  What  is  deliverance  from 
evil?  —  in.  The  gospel  and  pessimism,  i.  The  growth 
of  pessimism.  2.  The  indifference  of  the  "  superman." 
—  IV.   The  courage  of  the  cross. 


CHAPTER  VI 

The  Forgiveness  of  Sin 161 

The  place  of  sin  in  life.  I.  The  nature  of  sin.  i.  The 
teaching  of  Jesus.  2.  The  teaching  of  Paul.  3.  The 
modern  equivalent  for  the  evangelic  conception  of  sin. 
Corporate  sin.  4.  Three  alarming  facts;  the  ease,  the 
socialization,  and  the  pleasure  of  sin.  —  II.  The  evangelic 
warning  against  sin.  I.  The  gospel's  exposition  of  the 
danger  of  sin.  The  modern  man's  conception  of  punish- 
ment. 2.  Sin  as  the  violation  of  God's  will.  3.  The 
reasonableness  of  the  belief  in  the  punishment  of  sin. 
4.  The  power  of  Jesus  to  awake  moral  shame.  —  III.  De- 
liverance from  sin  as  a  spiritual  process,  i.  Deliverance 
of  sin  not  identical  with  complete  moral  perfection. 
2.  The  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  of  faith.  The 
regenerate  power  of  the  divine  spirit  appropriated  through 
faith  in  Jesus  as  Christ.  —  IV.  The  question  of  the  moral 
order  involved  in  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  The  Pauline 
doctrine  of  atonement. — V.  The  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment in  the  history  of  Christianity:  I.  The  early  con- 
ceptions of  ransom,  sacrifice,  and  satisfaction;  2.  The 
permanent  element  in  the  Christian  consciousness  lying 
back  of  theories  of  the  atonement.  —  VI.  The  significance 
of  the  death  of  Christ  to  the  modern  man.  i.  His  death 
as  an  exposition  of  the  justice  of  the  moral  order:   (i}  As 


CONTENTS  XI 


PAGE 


involvedin  the  socialization  of  other  effects  of  sin  ;  (2)  As 
regards  suffering  resulting  from  altruistic  service.  2.  His 
suffering  a  testimony  to  the  divine  love:  (i)  Jesus'  faith 
in  such  love ;  (2)  What  is  really  meant  by  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins  ;  (3)  The  resurrection  as  a  complement  of 
the  death  of  Christ.  3.  The  death  of  Christ  as  an  expo- 
sition of  the  ethical  unity  of  God.  —  VII.  The  forgiveness 
of  sins  positive  as  vi^ell  as  negative. 

CHAPTER  VII 

The  Deliverance  from  Death 208 

A  belief  in  immortality  is  the  answer  of  the  race  to 
the  challenge  of  death.  1.  The  place  of  death  in  the 
New  Testament,  i.  Hebrew  and  Jewish  views.  2.  Early 
Christian  conception  of  the  resurrection  and  of  death  as 
a  punishment  of  sin.  —  II.  The  a  priori  objection  to  the 
resurrection  weakened  by  the  following  considerations: 
I.  A  belief  in  immortality  involved  in  our  knowledge  of 
life ;  2.  The  spiritual  individual  rather  than  society  the 
outcome  of  the  evolutionary  process  ;  3.  Argument  from 
the  subliminal  self ;  4.  Prospect  of  scientific  demonstra- 
tion of  the  future  life.  —  III.   The  resurrection  of  Jesus. 

1.  Starting-point   of    the   faith    of   the    early   disciples. 

2.  Hypothetical  explanations  of  this  belief. — IV.  The 
content  of  the  disciples'  experience  of  the  risen  Christ. 
I.  Pauline  beliefs  the  point  of  departure.  2.  The  gospels' 
account  of  the  resurrection  as  compared  with  the  Pauline. 

3.  The  resurrection  as  distinguished  from  the  ascension. 
—  V.  The  resurrection  of  Jesus  as  an  exposition  of  the 
finality  of  the  spiritual  life.  i.  The  resurrection  more 
than  a  mere  wonder.  2.  Its  significance  to  the  modern 
man. 


XU  CONTENTS 

PART    III 

THE  POWER  OF   THE  GOSPEL 

CHAPTER  VIII 


PAGE 


The  Test  of  Life 239 

Summary  of  the  preceding  discussion.  I.  The  general 
grounds  for  the  alleged  impracticability  of  the  gospel. 
I.  An  oriental  religion.  2.  Its  individualism.  —  II.  Spe- 
cific grounds  for  denial  of  its  practicability.  I.  Its  ap- 
peal to  rewards  and  punishments.  2.  Will  to  power  vs. 
love.  3.  Love  inferior  to  justice.  4.  Excessive  ethical 
idealism,  5.  Alleged  ad  interim  ethics.  6.  The  funda- 
mental struggle  between  the  non-religious  modern  man 
and  spiritual  order. 


CHAPTER  IX 

The  New  Life  in  Christ 272 

The  gospel  must  submit  to  the  test  of  immediate  effi- 
ciency. -  I.  The  meaning  of  salvation,  i.  In  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus.  The  identity  of  the  eternal  life  with  the 
spiritual  life,  to  gain  which  is  to  be  saved.  2.  In  the 
teaching  of  Paul.  Lif  "  1  the  Spirit  and  in  Christ  iden- 
tical with  the  triumph  of  the  spiritual  life.  —  II.  The 
psychology  of  the  spiritual  life,  i.  The  gospel  as  "sug- 
gestion." 2.  The  gospel  as  the  ideal  governing  religious 
impulse.  3.  The  gospel  as  presenting  the  faith  evoking 
Jesus.  — III.  The  gospel  as  a  way  to  spiritual  regenera- 
tion through  the  spirit  of  God.  i.  The  spiritual  life  not 
to  be  explained  wholly  in  terms  of  psychology.  2.  Re- 
ligion as  a  search  for  reconciliation  with  God.  3.  Moral 
regeneration  through  spiritual  life,  because  of  reconcilia- 
tion and  union  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  —  IV.  The  con- 
tinuity of  Christian  experience  as  an  expression  of  the 
spiritual  life  despite  doctrinal  variations. 


CONTENTS  Xlll 

CHAPTER  X 

PAGE 

The  Power  of  the  Social  Gospel 299 

I.  The  social  significance  of  the  spiritual  life.  i.  The 
kingdom  of  God  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  2.  The 
struggle  between  the  spiritual  and  the  materialistic 
orders.  —  II.  The  power  of  socialized  hatred.  i.  The 
social  power  of  the  gospel  commensurate  with  its  power 
to  rouse  a  hatred  of  sin.  2.  The  place  of  tolerance  in 
the  spiritual  life.  —  III.  The  function  of  the  church  as 
the  social  expression  of  the  spiritual  life  resulting  from  the 
gospel.  I.  The  modern  man's  obligation  to  the  church. 
2.  The  development  of  social  sympathy.  3.  The  social- 
izing of  the  spiritual  life,  the  supreme  social  function  of 
the  church.  4.  The  spiritualizing  of  the  new  formative 
forces  in  society.  5.  The  social  meaning  of  the  cross. 
6.  The  insistence  on  faith  in  the  working  of  God  in 
society.  —  IV.  The  problem  of  a  divided  church.  Con- 
clusion. 

Index 329 


n  3 


THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE 
MODERN  MAN 

PART    I 

THE   PROBLEM   OF  THE   GOSPEL 
CHAPTER  I 

THE  GOSPEL  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Is  the  gospel  of  the  New  Testament  to  be  ''the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation"  for  the  modem  man? 
Or  must  it  be  replaced  by  a  philosophy  of  religious 
values  that  reduces  the  historical  Jesus  to  a  creature 
of  the  unwarranted  faith  of  Galilean  jEishermen,  and 
changes  the  church  into  a  polite  audience  listening 
to  discussions  of  social  reform  ? 

These  questions  are  not  merely  rhetorical.  Chris- 
tianity was  founded  upon  the  Christ  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  history  of  the  church  is  the  history 
of  an  attempt  to  make  that  Christ  the  inspiration 
for  Godlike  living  and  the  basis  of  an  assurance  of 
divine   forgiveness.     Philosophies    have    come    and 


2  THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

gone,  theologies  have  been  supplanted  by  newer 
doctrines,  but  the  gospel  of  a  way  of  salvation  re- 
vealed by  a  real  Jesus  has  been  the  perennial  source 
of  constructive  Christian  experience.  Now,  however, 
we  are  told  that  the  gospel  in  its  original  New  Testa- 
ment sense  cannot  be  combined  with  the  other 
beliefs  of  modern  men  and  is  to  be  replaced  by 
some  religious  message  more  consonant  with  modern 
thinking.  We  can  see  on  all  sides  tendencies  which 
promise  the  fulfillment  of  this  prophecy.  We  do 
well,  therefore,  to  raise  the  question  frankly  whether 
the  modern  man's  attitude  towards  evangelical 
Christianity  must  be  essentially  skeptical  and  nega- 
tive, and  whether  the  gospel  can  be  truly  a  force  in 
our  modern  world. 

The  situation  is  as  critical  for  the  church  as  for 
the  modem  world.  Unless  the  gospel  can  control  the 
formative  men  of  to-day,  it  will  require  more  than 
one  generation  to  regain  the  ground  Christianity  will 
lose.  The  gospel,  it  is  true,  will  remain  the  posses- 
sion of  the  theologically  simple  minded;  it  will 
continue  to  furnish  the  individualistic  morality  of  our 
common  life;  but  it  will  not  keep  men  and  women 
who  have  come  under  the  influence  of  the  truly 
modem  world  from  pessimism,  moral  indifference, 
and   the   practice   and   philosophy   of   force.     The 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT  3 

church  needs  these  formative  lives.  Society  needs 
them  even  more.  Evangelized  leaders  are  as  indis- 
pensable as  evangelized  masses.  If  without  their 
influence  the  church  will  grow  intellectually  and 
socially  flaccid,  without  their  power  to  infuse  the 
gospel  into  social  transformation  society  will  grow 
materialistic.  For  a  man,  even  though  he  be  rich 
and  learned  and  formative,  needs  to  be  saved.  And  a 
social  order,  even  though  it  build  transcontinental 
railroads  and  turn  its  forests  into  books,  needs  to 
be  made  the  kingdom  of  God. 

I 

At  the  very  outset  of  our  discussion  we  are  con- 
fronted by  the  question  of  method.  Where  shall  the 
gospel  be  found?  Modern  Christianity  as  a  re- 
ligion is  an  historically  developed  system  of  doctrines, 
each  the  product  of  a  particular  period.  Far  more 
than  the  non-technical  student  of  our  religion  is 
aware,  this  body  of  dogma  is  the  common  property 
of  all  Christendom.  It  is  embodied  in  the  various 
symbols  of  Protestantism,  but  Protestants  gained 
it  from  the  Roman  church;  the  Roman  church  and 
the  Greek  church  as  well  drew  it  from  those  ecu- 
menical councils  which  recall  not  only  the  world- 
wide controversies  they  sought  to  settle,  but  also  the 


4      THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

time  when  all  Christians  were  at  one  except  as  they 
were  heretics  or  schismatics. 

Although  ecumenical  theology  is  derived  from  scrip- 
tural teachings,  it  need  only  be  read  in  the  creeds 
of  Constantinople  and  Chalcedon  to  be  recognized 
as  something  different  from  the  gospel  of  the  New 
Testament.  Every  word  of  the  creedal  sentences  is 
a  shibboleth  intended  to  separate  some  independent 
thinker  or  school  of  thinkers  from  the  Catholic  church. 
But  is  this  Christianity  the  religion  of  Christ?  And 
is  it  to  be  the  starting  point  of  that  theological  recon- 
struction we  are  all  but  unanimously  agreed  must  be 
undertaken  if  our  rapidly  growing  educated  class  is  to 
be  kept  loyal  to  the  church  ?  No  questions  are  dis- 
cussed more  earnestly  or  with  more  learning.  And 
the  more  we  know  of  what  might  be  called  the 
natural  history  of  this  Christianity  of  ecclesiastical 
authority,  the  more  are  we  convinced  that  it  is  the 
descendant  of  a  numerous  ancestry  of  which  the 
gospel  of  the  New  Testament  is  only  one  member. 
In  our  inherited  corpus  of  doctrine  we  can  see  the  sur- 
vivals of  Greek  philosophy,  Roman  distrust  of  logical 
thoroughness,  the  rites  and  mysteries  of  an  orien- 
talized Graeco-Roman  world,  mediaeval  politics,  and 
even  the  traces  of  Indian  theosophy  and  asceticism. 

This  is  not  to  say  that  such  eclecticism  and  solidifi- 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT     5 

cation  of  religious  survivals  into  a  religion  nucleated 
around  the  gospel  could  have  been  avoided,  or  that 
on  the  whole  it  is  to  be  lamented.  For  my  part  I  can- 
not see  how  the  gospel  ever  could  have  become  the 
religion  of  a  Hellenized  civilization  without  being 
clothed  in  Greek  concepts.  Nor  could  it  have  become 
a  power  in  the  mediaeval  world  except  it  had  been  ex- 
pressed in  mediaeval  terms  and  methods.  The  only 
thing  that  need  here  concern  us  beyond  the  undeni- 
able fact  that  dogma  has  a  pedigree  is  the  question  as 
to  whether  such  a  theological  system  shall  be  our 
point  of  departure.  In  a  search  for  the  method  by 
which  the  gospel  can  be  made  more  influential  in  our 
modern  world,  shall  we  recast  inherited  beliefs,  or 
shall  we  begin  with  the  New  Testament  itself,  and, 
as  it  were,  repeat  in  our  own  day  the  process  by  which 
the  gospel  has  always  been  brought  into  intellectual 
harmony  and  expression  in  earlier  periods  ? 

I  have  no  hesitation  in  declaring  for  the  second 
alternative. 

The  study  of  the  history  of  doctrine  is  illuminating 
if  a  man  would  gain  a  conception  of  the  actual  situa- 
tion created  by  orthodoxy  to  which  he  must  adjust 
his  own  message.  It  is  helpful  in  developing  religious 
interest  and  theological  balance ;  it  is  indispensable 
as  indicating  the  process  by  which  we  may  bring 


6      THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

the  gospel  to  our  modern  life.  But  it  is  not  a  point 
of  departure  for  theological  reconstruction.  The  great 
demand  to-day  is  not  for  a  manipulation  of  our  inher- 
ited theology  into  some  form  more  acceptable  to  our 
modern  ways  of  thinking.  It  is  rather  for  a  frank 
disregard  of  inherited  dogma  except  by  way  of  his- 
torical evaluation  and  a  return  to  the  primitive 
gospel  itself ;  to  the  gospel  that  founded  Christianity, 
conquered  the  Roman  Empire,  and  embodies  the 
continuous  realities  of  the  spiritual  life.  True, 
the  apperceptive  mass  of  doctrine  —  if  the  expression 
may  be  pardoned  —  is  one  element  in  the  situation 
to  which  the  gospel  must  be  presented  in  that  it 
affects  the  method  of  presentation,  and  suggests 
caution  in  adopting  a  radical  program  of  illumina- 
tion. But  this  mass  of  doctrine  does  not  constitute 
in  itself  the  substance  of  a  truly  spiritual  Christianity. 
A  sense  of  the  truth  of  this  assertion  is  the  real  cause  of 
the  widespread  demand  to  ''go  back  to  Christ,"  or, 
rather,  to  bring  Christ  back  to  us.  Inherited  ortho- 
doxy is  so  colored  by  outgrown  philosophies,  pre- 
scientihc  conceptions,  outgrown  political  ideals  and 
prejudices,  as  to  be  unusable  by  many  an  earnest  man 
and  woman.  To  remodel  the  old  house  is  more 
expensive  than  to  tear  it  down  and  use  such  materials 
of  it  as  are  sound  in  erecting  a  new  building. 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT  7 

Here  is  one  characteristic  of  a  positive,  evangelical 
theology :  it  uses  the  material  which  theologies  of  the 
past  have  employed.  It  would  throw  away  nothing 
which  its  analysis  of  the  doctrinal  development  may 
discover  to  be  more  than  concepts  used  to  interpret 
eternal  realities  to  a  given  age.  But  it  starts  with 
the  strictly  evangelic  data  which  have  been  worked 
into  the  corpus  of  doctrine,  rather  than  with  that 
corpus  itself.  It  would  use  the  bits  of  glass  of  the 
mosaic  figure,  but  it  would  not  seek  above  all  to 
preserve  the  figure. 

II 

What  then  is  that  gospel  of  the  New  Testament 
which  we  would  bring  to  our  modern  world? 

Sometimes  w^  speak  of  it  as  if  it  were  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  or  some  philosophy  of  religion,  or  some 
general  m.essage  about  deliverance  in  Heaven. 
There  is  truth  in  each  of  these  conceptions,  for  each 
embodies  some  aspect  or  implication  of  the  gospel; 
but  the  definition  which  we  seek  is  not  in  any  of  them. 
If  we  would  formulate  the  gospel  with  precision,  we 
must  place  ourselves  back  at  the  moment  when 
Christianity  was  first  preached  as  a  distinctive  mes- 
sage. Our  method  must  be  historical,  not  dog- 
matic. 

I.  In  the  Synoptic  Gospels  we  find  the  gospel  as 


8      THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

first  announced,  a  message  of  the  approaching  ful- 
fillment of  a  religious-social  hope  —  the  establish- 
ment of  God's  own  kingdom  through  one  whom 
God  had  appointed  and  empowered  for  the  task. 
John  the  Baptist  did  not  undertake  to  define  what 
was  meant  by  Christ  or  the  kingdom  or  the  Day  of 
Judgment.  He  appealed  to  the  definite  expectations 
of  those  to  whom  he  spoke.  His  emphasis  was  not 
laid  upon  a  new  doctrine,  but  on  the  fulfillment  of  the 
noblest  hope  of  Judaism.  God  was  about  to  act. 
The  Judge  was  at  the  doors.  The  Christ,  although 
they  did  not  know  him,  was  already  in  the  midst  of  the 
people  whom  he  would  deliver.  To  prepare  them- 
selves for  his  Day  and  his  new  kingdom,  men  had 
only  to  repent,  be  baptized,  and  live  a  life  of  social 
helpfulness. 

When  Jesus  took  up  the  work  which  John  was 
forced  to  abandon,  he  began  with  the  same  message : 
The  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand.  Men  were  to 
believe  that  message.  But  while  with  John  the 
expectation  was  centered  on  the  Day  of  Judgment 
with  which  the  kingdom  was  to  be  inaugurated,  with 
Jesus  it  was  centered  upon  the  deliverance  which  was 
to  be  accomplished.  It  was  good  news  —  the  gospel. 
Therein  he  changed  a  negative  to  a  positive  hope. 

Jesus  was,  however,  not  content  to  announce  that 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT     9 

the  prayer  for  national  deliverance  was  about  to  be 
answered.  He  knew  that  God's  deliverance  could 
not  be  national  and  ethnic,  but  was  to  be  personal  and 
social.  The  kingdom  which  God  was  to  establish 
could  be  enjoyed  only  by  those  who  were  like  its 
King.  Thus  there  grew  up  his  exposition  of  himself 
as  the  Son  of  Man,  the  embodiment  of  the  ideal  life, 
and  the  proclamation  of  the  conditions  under  which 
this  life  is  to  be  lived  in  an  evil  world. 

Four  joyous  truths  combined  to  make  the  message 
which  he  delivered ;  God  can  be  trusted  as  a  Father 
to  save  his  children  from  Satan,  sin,  and  death; 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  a  certain  and  supreme  good  for 
those  who  seek  forgiveness  of  the  Father ;  eternal  life 
is  a  life  of  love,  in  quality  like  that  of  God ;  and  this 
divine  life  is  revealed  in  Jesus  himself,  as  a  forgiving 
ministry  of  love  to  others,  even  though  that  ministry 
brings  loss  and  death. 

It  is  difficult  to  say  which  of  these  four  elements  is 
the  more  important,  but  as  the  substance  of  an  evan- 
gelical message  the  last  was  the  more  characteristic  of 
the  religion  which  Jesus  inaugurated.  The  original 
gospel  of  Jesus  was  the  product  of  a  life-process  — 
the  self-revelation  of  its  author.  He  was  living 
the  life  of  the  Spirit.  Distressed  by  circumstance 
though  he  was,  he  was  the  type  of  that  kingdom 


lO     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

which  was  to  come.  His  teachings  were  not  the 
result  of  speculation  but  of  experience.  To  be- 
lieve his  teaching  as  to  the  Fatherliness  of  God, 
the  supremacy  of  righteousness,  faith,  and  love,  was 
to  listen  to  exposition  of  the  supreme  values  of  life 
by  one  who  was  able  to  make  them  supreme  in  his 
own  living.  For  a  man  to  make  them  controlling  in 
one's  own  life  was  to  be  morally  like  Jesus,  possessed 
like  him  of  a  joyous,  emancipating  trust  in  the  Father 
and  a  self-sacrificing  love  for  men.  As  Jesus  him- 
self declared,  it  was  to  be  perfect  like  God.  The 
sense  of  union  which  Jesus  had  with  God  was  the 
source  of  the  Truth  which  was  to  be  men's  Way  to 
Life.  Whether  or  not  they  used  the  term,  when  men 
believed  this  they  believed  that  Jesus  was  indeed  the 
Messiah. 

The  program,  if  we  may  use  such  a  term,  in  which 
Jesus  set  forth  this  spiritual  deliverance  born  of  a 
unique  experience  of  God  was  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent the  messianic  hope  of  the  Pharisees,  but  that 
program  is  never  obtrusive  in  his  teaching.  The 
early  Christians  attributed  to  him  certain  messianic 
expressions  which  he  himself  probably  never  used, 
at  least  in  the  precise  form  in  which  they  stand  in  the 
New  Testament  and  in  the  other  early  Christian 
writings;  but  it  is   not   difficult  for   a   thoroughly 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT          II 

objective  criticism  to  dissociate  such  words  from 
those  which  were  really  his.  Apocalyptic  his  teach- 
ings indubitably  were,  but  it  is  possible  to  dis- 
tort and  overemphasize  the  importance  of  this  ele- 
ment. The  kingdom  of  God  was  still  future,  but  he, 
its  founder  and  herald,  was  present  and  its  spiritual 
life  could  be  lived  in  untoward  surroundings  if  men 
only  dared.  If  he  expected  the  kingdom  would  be 
established  by  catastrophe  —  and  after  all  legitimate 
allowance  is  made  for  apostolic  coloring  in  the  reports 
of  his  words  it  is  not  improbable  that  this  was  in  his 
expectations  —  such  a  catastrophe  was  not  central 
in  his  teachings.  Indeed  it  all  but  disappears  before 
an  impartial  criticism  of  the  sources.  He  looked 
across  the  chasm  that  separated  the  two  ages  recog- 
nized by  current  messianism,  and  centered  the  thought 
of  his  followers  on  the  present  forgiving  love  of  God, 
the  new  social  order  the  Father  would  establish, 
the  freedom,  the  love,  the  joyousness  by  which  it  was 
to  be  characterized.  This  new  sort  of  life,  the  Age-  or 
eternal-life,  he  embodied  and  sought  so  to  describe 
that  his  followers  might  seek  and  gain  it.  The  escha- 
tological  pictures  which  we  find  in  Jewish  literature, 
like  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  the  other  apocalypses, 
were  not  the  content,  but  the  clothing  of  his  message. 
They  might  all  be  omitted  and  his  teaching  would 


12     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

still  be  the  richest  of  all  the  sages.  To  change  the 
figure,  they  were  the  point  of  contact,  or  rather  the 
point  of  departure,  of  his  teaching. 

But  one  thing  cannot  be  overlooked  by  any  un- 
prejudiced interpreter :  Jesus  believed  that  he  was  the 
Christ.  Not  the  Christ  in  the  strictly  Jewish  sense 
that  in  the  future  he  would  establish  Judaism  and 
judge  the  nations,  but  in  the  deeper  sense  that  he  saw 
himself  embodying  the  very  heart  of  a  redemptive, 
regenerating  God.  The  spirit  of  the  Lord  was  upon 
him,  empowering  him  to  minister  to  the  needs  of  those 
who  needed  divine  assistance  and  to  save  those  who 
needed  to  be  delivered  from  Satan,  sin,  and  death. 

2.  When  one  passes  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  to 
that  of  the  apostles,  he  is  conscious  of  a  change  of 
atmosphere.  That  which  was  secondary  or  implicit  in 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  becomes  prominent  with  Peter 
and  Paul.  Jesus  was  Christ  the  Lord.  That  was 
the  simple  creed  of  the  first  Christians,  grounded  not 
only  on  their  acquaintance  with  Jesus,  but  on  their 
experience  of  the  Spirit,  and  primarily  upon  Jesus* 
character,  power,  and  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
Once  having  recognized  in  him  this  messianic  value, 
like  true  children  of  their  time  they  forecast  his 
future  in  its  light.  His  earthly  life  became  of  less  im- 
portance as  they  compared  it  with  the  future.     Its 


THE    GOSPEL   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT         1 3 

supreme  humiliation  was  not  that  merely  of  poverty, 
defeat,  and  death.  It  was  also  the  humiliation  of  a 
heavenly  being  who  humbled  himself  to  be  a  man 
and  sufferer.  Yet  even  thus  he  had  been  the  one 
who  was  to  deliver  Israel.  Although  his  real  mes- 
sianic work  was  yet  in  the  future,  it  was  daily  drawing 
nearer.  At  any  moment  they  believed  the  trumpet 
might  sound,  the  dead  rise  from  Sheol,  the  Judgment 
Seat  be  established,  the  New  Jerusalem  descend  from 
Heaven,  the  Christ  conquer  his  enemies,  and  his 
church  be  called  to  an  eternity  of  bliss.  Because 
they  believed  him  to  be  thus  superhuman,  they 
worshiped  him  as  the  Lord  of  their  lives  and  their 
future.  Their  gospel  thus  did  not  center  about  a 
dead,  defeated  Jesus,  but  about  the  triumphant, 
triumph-sharing  Christ.  It  was  a  message  not  of  the 
finality  of  suffering  and  self-repression,  but  of  the  su- 
premacy of  the  spiritual  surplus  of  the  Christlike  life. 
For  those  who  look  at  the  central  rather  than  the 
outer  elements  of  the  thought  of  both  Jesus  and  Paul, 
there  is  no  divergence  sufficient  to  break  an  essential 
unity  in  this  elaboration  of  the  gospel.  To  both 
alike  it  is  a  message  of  a  personal  and  social  salvation 
revealed  and  wrought  through  Jesus  by  God.  If 
we  analyze  Paul's  message  as  it  appears  or  is  involved 
in  his  writings,  the  messianic  work  which  was  to  be 


14     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

accomplished  by  Jesus  the  Christ  was  the  same  as  that 
expected  by  all  the  early  Christians,  a  divine  deliver- 
ance from  the  same  three  great  and  terrible  enemies 
we  find  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus:  from  Satan,  who 
had  established  his  kingdom  in  the  world  and  who 
was  bringing  misery  of  all  sorts  upon  men,  both 
bad  and  good  alike;  from  Sin,  that  half -personified 
principle  which  held  humanity  in  its  power  because 
humanity  began  in  sinful  Adam,  and  which  no  man 
could  escape  because  all  men  were  ''carnal";  and 
from  death,  the  horror  of  which  ran  throughout  all 
Jewish  life. 

This  message  of  deliverance  involved  many  subor- 
dinate matters.  Time  was  divided  into  two  ages :  the 
first,  in  which  the  Prince  of  Evil  reigned,  and  the 
followers  of  Christ  were  to  expect  sorrow ;  the  second 
the  Age  which  was  to  come  in  which  Christ  would 
establish  the  kingdom  of  God  —  an  age  in  which 
the  wicked  were  to  suffer  and  the  righteous  were  to  be 
happy.  This  new  age  was  to  be  ushered  in  by  the 
Day  of  Judgment.  The  writers  of  the  Jewish  apoca- 
lypses described  this  awful  day  in  detail  and  it  was  no 
less  real  to  the  early  church.  But  with  this  difference : 
the  apostles,  like  Jesus,  made  the  basis  of  eternal 
destinies  then  to  be  fixed,  not  one  of  Jewish  or  Gentile 
birth,  but  rather  the  actual  possession  of  the  sort  of 


THE    GOSPEL   OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT         1 5 

life  which  could  make  membership  in  the  kingdom 
possible.  With  the  Christian  the  message  of  the 
judgment  was  fundamentally  a  message  of  deliver- 
ance by  transformation  of  the  individual  by  God's 
Spirit  into  the  likeness  of  Jesus.  The  man  who  had 
accepted  Jesus  as  Christ  and  had  consequently 
received  the  spirit  of  Christ  into  his  soul  awaited 
calmly  this  day  of  terror  to  others.  He  was  already 
acquitted.  The  Judge  was  his  Savior,  in  whom  he 
trusted.  Death  would  separate  him  from  the  flesh, 
the  agent  of  sin,  and  the  resurrection  was  to  save  him 
from  both  Satan  and  death.  The  certainty  of  this 
triumph  was  assured  by  the  incontestable  experience 
born  of  faith  in  the  goodness  of  God,  and  by  the 
historic  fact  that  the  Jesus  who  had  embodied  this 
life  of  the  Spirit  had  shown  the  way  to  the  divine 
threefold  deliverance. 

It  is  only  a  hasty  estimate  that  fails  to  see  that  the 
deliverance  thus  foretold  by  both  Jesus  and  Paul  is 
positive  rather  than  negative,  ethical  rather  than 
magical.  Although  in  its  complete  sense  it  was  yet 
future,  germinantly  it  was  already  a  present  posses- 
sion. Salvation  did  not  mechanically  come  to  a 
man ;  he  waited,  a  new  creation,  for  the  coming  king- 
dom. Satan  might  buffet,  but  Satan  could  bring 
only  temporary  sorrow;   his  age  was  about  to  end. 


1 6  THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

Death  might  come,  but  death  had  been  overcome; 
those  who  possessed  the  spirit  of  the  God  who  had 
raised  Christ  from  the  dead,  already  possessed  an 
eternal  life  like  that  of  Jesus.  An  evil  age  might  bring 
Christians  suffering,  but  their  Master  had  overcome 
the  age.  His  followers,  living  as  best  they  could  a 
life  like  that  of  their  great  King,  could  well  endure 
the  miseries  of  an  evil  age.  They,  if  not  their  present 
comfort,  were  safe. 

3.  At  this  point,  however,  we  confront  a  question 
which  has  been  elevated  into  great  prominence  in 
recent  New  Testament  study.  It  is  the  very  simple 
question  as  to  whether  there  is  more  than  one  gospel 
in  the  New  Testament.  Or,  to  put  it  more  specific- 
ally, did  Jesus  give  us  the  gospel  and  did  Paul  give 
us  a  new  religion  —  Christianity  ?  Such  a  question 
will  seem  to  many  a  man  as  irrelevant,  if  not  worse. 
Orthodox  Christianity  in  its  formulation  did  not 
recognize  the  methods  of  modern  Biblical  theology. 
It  started  with  the  Bible  rather  than  the  distinctive 
messages  of  the  various  writers  of  the  Bible ;  least  of 
all  did  it  distinguish  between  those  of  Jesus  and 
Paul.  Any  examination  of  theological  treatises 
will  show  that  their  writers  have  never  hesitated  to 
combine  any  sentences  from  different  parts  of  the 
Bible  which  seem  in  any  way  to  agree,  and  on  the 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT  1 7 

basis  of  their  combined  teaching  to  formulate  dog- 
mas. In  this  way  there  has  grown  up  a  Christian 
theology  based  upon  an  uncritical  combination  of 
material.  In  cases  where  such  material  has  not 
been  readily  combined  the  inconsistencies  of  various 
texts  have  been  evaded  or  removed  by  exegetical 
ingenuity  ranging  from  the  allegories  of  the  early 
church  Fathers  to  the  formulations  of  councils. 

It  is  a  characteristic  of  our  modern  study,  however, 
that  it  treats  the  Bible  analytically.  Instead  of 
treating  it  as  an  integral  book,  it  compares  the 
teachings  of  its  different  authors  and  attempts  to 
point  out  similarities  and  differences  in  their  develop- 
ment. In  the  case  of  Jesus  and  Paul  it  was  very 
natural  that  this  should  at  first  tend  to  magnify  the 
differences  between  the  simple,  unphilosophical, 
joyously  creative  religious  message  of  Jesus  and  the 
elaborated  systemizations  of  Paul.  With  some 
interpreters  such  differences  become  the  controlling 
factors  in  interpretation.  In  their  opinion  Paul  in 
comparison  with  Jesus  is  an  absolutely  new  phenome- 
non. His  theology  is  not  determined  by  a  picture  of 
Jesus'  life  and  in  it  we  can  find  little  of  the  gospel 
which  Jesus  taught.  "  That  which  was  everything  to 
Paul  was  nothing  to  Jesus."  In  Jesus  we  have  a  call 
to  men  to  submit  their  souls  to  God  and  His  will. 


iS  THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

In  Paul  whoever  believes  in  the  incarnation,  death, 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus  as  a  Divine  Being  can 
obtain  salvation.  Even  in  the  case  of  less  radical 
scholars  a  pronounced  difference  is  found  between  the 
Master  and  the  apostle,  —  a  difference  between  "the 
voluntary  and  immediate  apprehension  of  God's 
love  in  childlike  confidence,  and  the  belief  that  man 
may  venture  to  approach  God,  because  God  Him- 
self has  offered  the  necessary  sacrifice  upon  the  cross 
of  Christ." 

The  extent  to  which  the  self-consciousness  of  Jesus 
varies  from  the  interpretation  placed  upon  him  by 
Paul  must  be  considered  later.  At  this  point  it  is 
necessary  only  to  consider  the  main  question  already 
raised  as  to  whether  there  are  two  gospels.  The 
reply  to  this  is  immediate  in  the  words  of  Paul  to  the 
Galatians:  "There  is  no  gospel  of  any  other  sort  or 
kind."  The  contrast  between  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
and  that  of  Paul  is,  of  course,  apparent  to  every  reader 
of  the  New  Testament,  but  it  is  not  a  difference  in 
fundamental  character.  It  consists  rather  in  the 
case  of  Paul  of  the  exposition  of  the  significance  of 
the  person  of  Jesus  and  of  the  salvation  wrought  by 
him  in  terms  that  made  it  applicable  and  tenable 
among  the  Christians  of  his  own  day.  The  champions 
of  the  view  that  sharply  distinguish  Paulinism  from 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT  I9 

the  message  of  Jesus  have  failed  to  distinguish  between 
two  processes  in  the  apostle's  preaching,  —  the  evan- 
gelistic, which  we  find  set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Acts, 
the  historicity  of  which  is  daily  becoming  increasingly 
recognized;  and  the  educational,  directed  to  those 
who  have  already  accepted  Jesus  as  Christ  and 
who  need  to  be  taught  loyalty  to  their  new  spiritual 
experience.  Paul  certainly  was  far  more  informed 
as  to  the  historical  Jesus  than  those  who  insist  upon 
his  fundamental  divergence  from  his  Master  are 
ready  to  admit.  But  his  great  effort  in  writing  to 
Christians  was  not  to  do  that  which  such  Ministers 
of  the  Word  as  Mark  were  capable  of  doing,  but  rather 
to  apply  the  gospel  to  the  exigencies  of  the  human 
experience,  and  to  defend  it  from  the  attacks  of  those 
who  sought  to  ingulf  it  in  Judaism  or  some  gnostic 
speculation.  The  difference  between  Jesus  and 
5.  j  Paul  at  this  point  is  that  between  the  formulation  of 
;  the  imperatives  of  religious  faith  and  the  theology  of 
I  religious  experience.  In  so  far  as  the  theologians  of 
the  schools  have  been  swayed  by  the  perception  of  the 
fundamental  identities  which  bind  together  these  two 
stages  of  religious  teaching,  they  have  been  justified 
in  combining  the  material  that  has  come  from  Jesus 
and  from  Paul. 

Nor  is  it  possible  to  rule  out  of  court  this  funda- 


20     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

mental  agreement  in  the  redemption  messages  of  Paul 
and  of  Jesus  by  asserting  that  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
as  they  stand  to-day  are  the  products  of  Paulinism. 
Such  a  method  is  altogether  too  easy  and  too  a  priori. 
To  say  that  whenever  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptics  and 
the  Jesus  of  Paul  agree  it  is  because  the  writers  of 
these  early  gospels  have  been  influenced  by  Paul  is  a 
begging  of  the  question  as  naive  as  is  alleged  by 
some  to  be  found  in  traditional  orthodoxy  itself.  The 
central  message  of  Jesus  is  the  central  message  of 
Paul,  however  much  the  apostle  may  have  elabo- 
rated and  adjusted  that  message  to  local  needs. 

But  we  may  go  one  step  farther.  Such  an  elabora- 
tion of  the  systematic  relations  of  the  gospel  as  Paul 
has  given  was  imperatively  demanded  by  the  exi- 
gencies of  thought  itself.  No  man  is  able  to  leave 
religion  uncorrected  with  his  experience.  There 
are  too  many  fundamental  questions  that  he  must 
answer.  And  unless  the  thinking  of  the  centuries 
has  been  incredibly  artificial,  the  questions  which  Paul 
raised  concerning  the  relation  of  God's  deliverance  as 
revealed  in  and  accomplished  by  Jesus  with  such 
problems  as  its  dependence  on  Judaism,  death,  human 
history,  the  moral  order  of  the  universe,  and  the 
future  of  the  individual,  to  say  nothing  of  its  rela- 
tion to  moral  construction,  are  precisely  those  which 


THE    GOSPEL   OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT         21 

a  man  of  any  epoch  must  face  and  answer.  And  in 
answering  such  questions  he  will  inevitably  follow 
the  same  method  as  that  adopted  by  Paul  himself. 
He  will  answer  them  in  view  of  the  person,  the  ideal- 
ism, the  death  and  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  in 
the  terms  of  his  own  age. 

4.  One  point,  however,  still  remains  to  be  con- 
sidered. It  is  that  to  which  we  must  repeatedly 
recur,  namely,  the  relative  importance  of  the  appara- 
tus by  which  Paul  and,  to  some  extent,  Jesus  himself 
set  forth  the  significance  of  the  gospel :  that  is  to 
say,  the  forms  of  thought  furnished  by  the  apocalyptic 
thought  of  New  Testament  times. 

Here  again  we  must  postpone  any  complete  dis- 
cussion, but  in  view  of  present  tendencies  it  should 
be  said  that  every  interpreter  must  give  large  latitude 
to  his  treatment  of  all  apocalyptic  forecasts.  The 
modern  man  has  little  of  that  instinctive  sympathy 
with  symbolism  which  pervades  early  Christian 
thought.  The  apocalypse,  like  prophecy,  is  essen- 
tially poetic.  It  is  a  lamentable  exegetical  method 
that  sees  in  its  pictures  any  attempt  at  scientific  accu- 
racy. It  is,  of  course,  a  fair  question  as  to  just  how  far 
the  authors,  and  particularly  the  first  readers,  of  these 
apocalypses  regarded  them  as  figurative,  for  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  literal  and  the  pictorial  is  always 


22  THF    GOSPEL    AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

hard  to  draw  in  Jewish  thought.  The  genius 
of  Hebraism  was  unanalytic,  with  a  constant  tend- 
ency toward  solidifying  qualities  into  quantities, 
just  as  the  Greek  thought  was  constantly  tending  to 
abstract  general  conceptions  from  concrete  experience. 
The  Hebrew  language,  for  instance,  lacks  adjectives ; 
nouns  must  serve  in  their  place.  Figures  of  speech, 
even  of  the  most  abstract  sort,  steadily  tended  toward 
personification.  The  word  and  the  wisdom  of 
Jehovah  became  subordinate  mediators  between 
him  and  his  world.  Yet  on  the  other  hand,  concrete 
realities  were  constantly  used  in  relations  which 
show  that  their  use  was  symbolic.  Isaiah  represents 
an  angel  as  bringing  a  hot  coal  from  the  altar, 
placing  it  upon  the  prophet's  tongue,  and  then  bidding 
him  to  speak.  It  is  impossible  and  absurd  to  place 
many  of  the  pictures  of  the  messianic  age  in  precise 
scientific  categories.  Just  as  the  rabbis,  looking  back, 
described  the  Golden  Age  of  pharisaism  under  Alex- 
andra as  the  time  when  a  grain  of  wheat  was  as  large 
as  a  kidney,  did  the  apocalyptists  describe  the  vine- 
yards of  the  messianic  age  as  producing  bunches  of 
grapes  yielding  hogsheads  of  wine.  No  Jew  would 
be  deceived  by  such  figures.  They  would  symbolize 
to  him  the  boundless  fertility  of  the  soil  under  the 
blessings  of  Jehovah.     So  even  more  clearly  in  the 


THE    GOSPEL   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         23 

case  of  such  figures  as  we  find  in  the  Book  of  Daniel, 
the  Enoch  literature,  and  the  Apocalypse  of  John. 
Symbolism  is  there  self-evident. 

For  these  reasons  the  modem  interpreter  must  be 
slow  to  apply  too  rigorous  methods  to  the  apocalyp- 
tic hopes  of  the  early  Christian.  On  the  one  hand 
he  cannot  draw  the  line  with  precision  between  that 
which  is  to  be  taken  literally  and  that  which  is  to  be 
taken  figuratively,  but  on  the  other  hand  he  cannot 
safely  say  that  symbolism  is  not  present  in  all  apocalyp- 
tic figures.  He  must  not  overestimate  the  tendency 
towards  realism.  To  Jew  and  early  Christian  alike 
the  reality  which  these  apocalypses  contained  was 
more  than  that  of  the  picture  themselves.  There  is 
symbolism  in  the  cubical  shape  of  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem  and  in  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  the 
clouds  as  truly  as  in  the  beast  and  his  mark. 

But  eschatology  must  not  be  banished  with  its 
pictures.  Any  interpretation  in  a  truly  historical 
spirit  will  seek  to  recover  that  contained  within 
them,  no  matter  how  literally  they  may  have  been 
taken  by  certain  interpreters,  for  eschatology,  as 
will  presently  appear,  is  part  of  the  content  of  the 
gospel.  In  thus  interpreting  apocalyptic  imagery 
the  student  will  be  simply  following  the  indications 
of  the  writers  themselves  who  bid  those  who  "read, 


24  THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

understand."  And,  as  will  appear  later,  not  the  least 
important  among  the  hopes  contained  in  eschatologi- 
cal  programs  is  that  of  a  social  order,  which  though 
not  to  come  by  observation  or  effort,  would  be  no 
less  real  because  it  was  to  be  introduced  by  God. 

Ill 

This  message  of  a  divinely  accomplished  deliver- 
ance preached  by  the  founders  of  the  church  claims 
to  be  based  on  historical  facts.  That  is  evident  on 
every  page  of  the  New  Testament.  But  this  is  alto- 
gether too  general  a  statement.  To  be  precise 
we  must  recognize  that  the  gospel  is  historical  in  two 
senses ;  in  that  it  is,  first,  a  record  of  experiences,  and, 
second,  an  interpretation  of  that  experience  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  concepts  of  a  definite  historical 
period. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  the  gospel  is  identified  with 
definite  historical  experiences.  Primarily,  of  course, 
these  experiences  are  those  of  the  historical  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  I  do  not  raise  the  question  as  to  whether 
every  detail  in  the  New  Testament  accounts  is  sus- 
ceptible of  confirmation,  nor  the  larger  question  as 
to  whether  all  those  deeds  and  words  attributed  to 
him  by  Christian  centuries  are  genuinely  his.  But 
this  I  would  emphasize :  the  gospel  as  it  stands  in  the 


THE    GOSPEL  OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT         25 

New  Testament  and  as  understood  by  Christians  of 
the  pre-theological  age  includes  a  narrative  of  events. 
Although  Paul  is  not  primarily  interested  in  history 
as  such,  we  find  him  repeatedly  referring  to  the  life, 
humiliation,  death,  resurrection,  of  Jesus.  Once  he 
expressly  states  these  historical  facts  as  constituting 
a  part  of  the  gospel  he  preached.  If  possible  even 
more  strenuously  does  an  early  Christian  writer 
like  Ignatius  insist  upon  the  reality  of  the  person 
and  the  experiences  of  the  crucified  and  risen  Jesus. 
And  it  is  this  concrete  message  as  to  Jesus  together 
with  its  implications  for  the  spiritual  life  that  has 
constituted  the  substance  of  evangelicalism  through- 
out all  the  ages.  The  Christ  was  something  more 
than  a  "principle,"  something  more  than  Truth. 
He  was  a  genuine  person  sharing  in  the  course  of 
history  but  rising  above  the  natural  order  that 
had  apparently  crushed  him,  and  sharing  his 
triumph  with  all  those  who  share  his  spirit. 

Similarly,  the  gospel  of  the  New  Testament  em- 
bodies the  experience  of  the  first  Christians.  Prima- 
rily, such  experience  began  with  the  acceptance  of 
Jesus  as  teacher,  healer,  prophet,  and  the  Christ  of 
the  coming  kingdom.  But  their  real  enthusiasm 
and  evangelistic  impulse  was  connected  with  their 
belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.     They  had  seen 


26     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

him,  heard  him,  and,  if  the  gospels  in  their  present 
form  are  to  be  trusted,  had  put  their  hands  upon  him. 
As  to  the  nature  of  this  experience  of  the  risen  Jesus 
we  shall  presently  inquire,  but  that  it  is  an  integral 
part  of  the  first  preaching  of  the  gospel  there  can  be, 
and  is,  no  serious  doubt.  ; 

But  Christian  experience  as  related  in  the  New 
Testament  included  also  the  "gifts"  and  the  "fruit" 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Whatever  psychological  character 
we  may  ascribe  to  such  experience  it  is  obvious  that 
it  formed  a  part  of  the  original  gospel  message.  The 
promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  all  those  who  ac- 
cepted the  testhnony  of  the  new  evangelists  and 
believed  on  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  The  power^of 
God  was  announced  as  present  in  human  lives,  not 
only  as  the  assurance  of  an  eschatological  salvation, 
inestimably  precious  as  that  was,  but  also  as  the 
source  of  ability  to  work  cures,  make  converts,  and 
grow  morally  strong  in  the  spiritual  life.  In  the 
first  defense  of  the  new  faith  three  arguments  were 
uppermost:  the  actual  resurrection  of  Jesus,  the 
coming  of  the  Spirit  of  God  into  the  believer's  life, 
and  the  fulfillment  of  messianic  prophecy.  It  is 
obvious  that  the  first  two  of  these  apologetic  ele- 
ments are  in  the  region  of  history. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  the  gospel  is  historical  in 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT         27 

that  the  concept  by  which  the  experience  and  person 
of  Jesus  were  interpreted  and  evaluated  was  itself  the 
product  of  historical  forces. 

We  know  Jesus  as  a  definite  historical  person  only 
as  he  lives  for  us  in  the  records  of  the  faith  of  his 
earliest  disciples.  The  gospel  therefore  is  not  simply 
a  record  of  the  experiences  of  Jesus ;  it  is  a  message  of 
the  redemptive  value  of  these  experiences  as  formu- 
lated by  those  who  had  experienced  the  redemption. 
That  is  one  reason  why  Jesus  is  so  real.  He  has  been 
worked  into  the  very  life  of  history.  Now  in  the 
faith  of  these  disciples  Jesus  had  a  meaning  and  an 
office.  He  was  the  Christ ;  that  is,  —  and  the  defini- 
tion is  fundamental,  —  the  one  whom  God  Himself 
empowered  by  His  own  resident  spirit  to  save  His 
people  by  establishing  them  as  His  kingdom. 

It  was  impossible  for  these  conceptions,  in  which 
were  expressed  the  power  and  significance  of  Jesus, 
to  have  been  other  than  creatures  of  an  historical 
situation.  Experiences  which  become  the  substance 
of  any  preaching  are  always  expressed  in  terms  and 
thought-forms  derived  from  the  social  mind  in  which 
those  who  formulate  it  shared.  How  could  it  be 
otherwise  in  the  case  of  Jesus?  We  should  not 
expect  the  Grecian  world,  of  its  own  accord,  to  have 
thought  of  him  as  the  Messiah.     The  Greeks  did  not 


28     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

have  any  messianic  concept  to  employ.  That  came 
from  Judaism. 

This  Jewish  social  mind  itself  was  the  product  of  a 
long  historical  process  and  embraced  distinct  ele- 
ments each  of  which  came  over  from  the  past. 

First  of  all  the  messianic  hope  which  furnished  the 
messianic  interpretation  itself  was  the  outcome  of  a 
long  development.  Some  of  its  elements  are  to  be 
traced  even  to  Babylon.  It  involved  much  more 
than  the  use  of  a  single  term.  It  was  a  world-view 
which  extended  from  creation  in  the  past  to  and  into 
a  new  Age  that  was  to  come.  Not  that  the  New 
Testament  writers  explicitly  distinguish  between 
their  interpretation  and  the  facts  they  interpret.  As 
has  already  been  implied,  to  the  early  Christian  the 
acquittal  at  the  Day  of  Judgment  was  as  real  an 
element  of  the  gospel  as  Jesus'  teaching  about  the 
Fatherliness  of  God,  or  his  resurrection,  or  his  sinless- 
ness.  Apparently  Paul  was  as  much  convinced  of 
the  present  kingdom  of  Satan  as  he  was  of  the  coming 
kingdom  of  God.  The  gospel  in  fact  involved  a 
dualism  that  forced  upon  nascent  orthodoxy  its 
first  philosophical  problem,  namely,  how  a  good 
God  could  be  incarnate  in  an  evil  world,  and  thus 
compelled  it  to  combat  gnosticism. 

Then,  too,  deep  in  the  evangelic  message  we  can  see 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT         29 

embodied  theological  conceptions  born  of  that  social 
experience  which  always  finds  expression  in  the  re- 
ligious thinking  of  an  age.  The  Jewish  social  mind 
had  two  final  thought-forms  in  religion,  —  monarchy 
and  parenthood.  The  Jew  of  the  first  century  could 
think  of  no  higher  analogy  of  divine  power  than  the 
kingdom  of  that  awful  emperor  who  sat  enthroned 
upon  the  Palatine.  Religion,  so  far  as  it  dealt  with 
relations  between  man  and  God,  was  inevitably 
expressed  in  monarchical  terms.  If  God  were  the 
king,  men  were  his  subjects,  either  rebellious  and  to 
be  punished,  or  loyal  and  to  be  rewarded.  The  test 
and  measure  of  their  relations  was  the  divine  law. 
The  gospel  in  the  New  Testament  presupposes  this 
theology.  The  human  race  had  broken  God's  law. 
The  Sovereign  of  the  Universe  had  nothing  before 
Him,  therefore,  but  to  punish,  unless  He  chose  in  His 
grace  to  forgive.  Thus  there  arose  that  extension  of 
the  monarchical  conception  of  religion  to  be  met  in 
the  thought  of  Paul.  But  Paul  did  not  originate  the 
idea  of  justification  and  an  atonement  in  which  the 
messianic  king  suffered  for  his  subjects.  Both 
analogies  were  drawn  from  the  political  practice 
and  were  already  operative  in  the  religious  thought 
of  his  times. 

Similarly  in  the  case  of  the  parental   analogy. 


30     THE  GOSPEL  AND  TEE  MODERN  MAN 

The  heavenly  Father,  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  of 
Paul,  has  dignity  as  well  as  graciousness.  In  the 
ancient  family  the  father  had  rights  and  the  children 
had  duties,  and  these  reciprocal  relations  were  not 
affected  by  the  father's  waiving  of  his  rights.  He 
could  forgive  only  because  he  might  punish.  Sever- 
ity and  love  were  similarly  involved  in  the  family 
government  of  God. 

Another  institution  which  became  an  integral  part 
of  the  original  gospel  message  was  that  of  sacrifice. 
The  interpretation  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  sacrifice 
was  thrust  upon  the  early  Christian  by  the  religious 
practice  of  the  entire  world  of  New  Testament  times. 
Among  Jews  and  Greeks  alike  no  man  came  to 
a  sense  of  reconciliation  with  his  god  without  com- 
pleting the  reconciling  process  in  the  dramatic  act 
of  the  sacrifice.  The  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  it  is 
true,  was  not  at  the  start  formally  drawn  from  the 
sacrificial  analogy.  As  long  as  the  institution 
actually  continued,  it  was  enough  merely  to  speak  of 
that  death  in  terms  of  the  altar.  The  rationalizing  of 
the  death  of  Christ  in  the  first  thousand  years  of 
Christian  thought  proceeded  along  the  line  of  the 
monarchical  conception.  Jesus,  so  teachers  like 
Origen  asserted,  gave  himxself  as  a  ransom  to  Satan 
that  he  might  thus  release  those  of  his  subjects  whom 


THE    GOSPEL    OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT         3 1 

Satan  held  in  his  power  in  Sheol.  But  none  the  less 
the  death  of  Jesus  was  constantly  described  in  terms 
of  the  altar,  and  his  blood  was  held  to  be  the 
archetype  of  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats. 

The  first  preaching  of  the  gospel  message  also  pre- 
supposed the  fundamental  social  ideals  of  the 
ancient  world.  Equality  and  fraternity  were  terms 
of  little  but  academic  interest.  So  long  as  the  king 
was  autocratic,  his  subjects  differed  widely  in  the 
privileges  they  enjoyed,  and  these  privileges  ran  from 
that  sorry  minimum  enjoyed  by  slaves  to  that  maxi- 
mum given  to  those  nobles  whom  the  emperor  elected 
to  be  his  particular  friends.  The  gospel,  it  is  true, 
breaks  across  these  differences  in  classes  by  declaring 
that  all  social  differences  among  subjects  of  the  king- 
dom vanish,  but  such  a  state  of  equality  was  invari- 
ably transferred  to  the  ideal  relations  of  the  future 
kingdom.  In  Christ,  i.e.,  in  the  ideal  social  order  of 
the  spiritual  life  he  was  to  establish,  there  was 
neither  bond  nor  free;  in  the  church  there  were 
slaves.  In  Christ  there  was  neither  male  nor  female ; 
in  the  church  the  woman  was  the  weaker  vessel. 

IV 

Were,  then,  these  first  Christians  wholly  other- 
worldly, and  did  their  message  of  salvation  ignore  the 


32     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

needs  of  the  very  real  world  in  which  the  Christian 
waited  the  coming  of  his  Lord  ? 

The  early  Christians  did  not  recognize  any  call  to 
save  the  Roman  Empire  or  its  institutions.  They 
were  citizens  of  a  kingdom  yet  to  come.  Pending 
its  arrival,  they  endured  the  Empire's  oppressions, 
obeyed  as  best  they  could  its  laws,  and  withdrew 
as  far  as  was  practicable  from  its  evil  associations. 
They  married,  bought  and  sold,  died  and  were  buried, 
according  to  the  customs  of  their  neighbors.  They 
would  keep  themselves  unspotted  from  the  world, 
but  they  did  not  attempt  to  save  the  world.  They 
sought  to  save  men  and  women  from  the  world. 

Yet  such  statements  though  true  are  not  the  whole 
truth.  For  restrained  as  was  the  early  Christian 
in  the  social  expression  of  his  new  spiritual  life 
because  of  his  belief  in  the  speedy  return  of  Jesus  to 
establish  his  transcendental  kingdom,  he  was  never- 
theless socializing  ideals  that  were  to  be  of  the  ut- 
most influence.  Love  and  faith  and  sexual  purity 
are  positive  forces  in  any  society.  Even  more  potent 
is  the  belief  in  God's  working  in  the  community  of 
those  who  worship  Him  and  endeavor  to  grow  like 
Jesus  in  daily  life.  The  kingdom  of  God  as  a  social 
ideal  among  the  early  Christians  was  eschatological, 
but  as  among  the  Jews  it  was  none  the  less  social. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF    THE  NEW  TESTAMENT    2)3 

To  question  this  would  be  utterly  to  misinterpret  the 
gospel  on  the  one  hand  and  the  social  influences 
of  Christianity  on  the  other. 

The  makers  of  our  great  theologies  —  and  all  Chris- 
tendom is  one  at  this  point — have  built  many  of  these 
apocalyptic  eschatological  hopes  into  the  structure  of 
historical  orthodoxy.  To  hold  all  of  them  in  strenu- 
ous literalness,  however,  has  been  characteristic  of 
but  few  groups  of  Christians.  From  the  days  of  the 
Montanist  there  has  been  a  tendency  to  treat  the 
eschatological  elements  of  the  gospel  as  figures  of 
speech,  to  refer  them  wholly  to  the  distant  future,  or 
to  ignore  them.  Chiliasm,  or,  as  we  more  commonly 
call  it  to-day,  millennarianism,  has  always  been  re- 
jected as  a  controlling  element  in  authoritative 
dogma.  But  it  has  always  been  a  disturbing  factor 
in  the  history  of  the  church ;  and  naturally,  for  it  is 
clearly  enough  an  integral  element  of  the  first  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel.  Indeed,  from  one  point  it  might 
almost  be  said  that  the  history  of  dogma  has  been  in 
no  small  degree  the  history  of  a  struggle  between  that 
Christian  teaching  which  made  eschatology  its  con- 
trolling factor  and  that  Christian  theology  which 
gave  preeminence  to  contemporary  philosophy. 
Every  great  theologian  has  been  forced  in  some  way 
to  adjust  the  apocalyptic  eschatological  element  of  the 


34     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

gospel  to  the  perspective  of  the  essential  evangelic 
message  which  he  brought  to  his  age.  The  modern 
man  of  to-day,  just  as  truly  as  the  modern  man  of 
the  third  or  the  fifth  or  the  sixteenth  century,  must 
needs  face  the  problem  for  himself.  But  he  must  do 
this  methodically,  appreciatively,  sympathetically, 
and  not  arrogantly  or  subjectively. 


CHAPTER   II 


THE    MODERN    MAN 


The  world  we  live  in  is  obviously  very  different 
from  that  of  the  apostles,  and  the  presuppositions  of 
our  thinking  are  vastly  different  from  theirs.  Indeed, 
it  would  be  difficult  to  overestimate  the  contrasts 
between  the  age  of  the  New  Testament  and  our  own 
as  far  as  the  fundamental  attitudes  of  the  social  mind 
are  concerned.  In  the  outer  forms  of  life  there  are, 
it  is  true,  many  points  of  similarity.  It  would  be 
difficult  to  find  a  more  modern  period  in  history  than 
the  first  Christian  century.  Barring  their  inability 
to  apply  steam  and  electricity  to  industry,  —  an  ex- 
ception of  incalculable  importance, — the  men  of  the 
first  century  of  the  Roman  Empire  were  much  like  the 
men  of  to-day.  They  had  their  great  business  cor- 
porations, their  art,  their  literature,  their  professions, 
their  universities,  their  *'new  women,"  their  athletics. 
Indeed,  we  learn  that  at  Carthage  students  were  dis- 
orderly in  lectures,  that  at  Rome  they  failed  to  pay 
their  fees,  and  that  at  Alexandria  professional 
athletes  were  maintained  through  something  closely 

35 


36     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

resembling  that  ingenious  device  of  to-day,  the  train- 
ing table.  It  is  true  the  ancient  world  did  not  have 
football,  but  it  had  gladiatorial  sports  as  a  tolerable 
substitute. 

I 

But  over  against  these  similarities  are  at  least  four 
fundamental  differences :  — 

I.  The  modern  age  is  primarily  scientific  and 
controlled  by  the  conception  of  process. 

It  is  difficult  for  us  to  appreciate  what  scientific 
thought  must  have  been  in  a  world  that  believed  its 
universe  consisted  of  a  flat  earth  around  which  the 
waters  flowed,  with  several  heavens  superimposed, 
and  with  a  great  pit  beneath  in  which  was  the  abode 
of  the  dead.  There  was  considerable  knowledge 
in  ancient  culture  of  the  movements  of  the  heavenly 
bodies,  but  all  religious  thought  was  affected  by  this 
primitive  conception  of  the  universe.  It  was  not 
difficult,  for  instance,  for  the  early  church  to  believe 
that  all  men  by  looking  upward  at  the  same  moment 
could  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  the  clouds.  To- 
day we  do  not  know  just  when  we  are  looking  up  and 
when  we  are  looking  down,  and  such  a  united  vision  of 
an  appearance  in  the  heavens  is  physically  unthink- 
able, except  on  the  part  of  those  theologians  who 
give  us  to  understand  that  at  the  second  coming  of 


THE   MODERN   MAN  37 

Christ,  God  will  probably  enable  men  to  have  a  new 
method  of  sight. 

A  striking  illustration  of  its  fundamentally  different 
attitude  toward  nature  is  to  be  seen  in  medical 
practice.  In  surgery,  it  is  true,  the  ancient  world  had 
acquired  great  facility,  as  is  evidenced  not  only  by  re- 
ports of  very  difficult  operations,  but  also  by  the  col- 
lection of  surgical  instruments  from  Pompeii  pre- 
served in  the  museum  at  Naples.  But  in  dealing 
with  disease  equal  progress  had  not  been  made. 
It  has  always  been  easier  for  men  to  mend  a  broken 
bone  than  to  cure  a  cold.  This  difficulty  was  met 
by  the  Jews  in  a  very  simple  fashion.  They  laid 
disease  upon  Satan.  He  sent  miseries  upon  the 
world,  and  minor  devils  into  people.  If  a  man  was 
crazy,  he  was  possessed  of  a  devil.  If  he  had  boils, 
he  had  devils.  If  a  woman  was  bent  over  by  some 
disease,  she  had  been  bound  by  Satan.  Indeed, 
devils  might  be  said  to  have  been  the  bacilli  of  the 
ancient  world.  The  way  to  cure  a  man  was  to  find 
some  way  to  induce  the  devils  to  leave  him.  Some- 
times this  was  done  by  conjuring  the  devil  into  a 
certain  plant,  and  then  attaching  the  plant  to  the  tail 
of  a  dog,  and  then  forcibly  inducing  the  dog  to  pull  it 
up.  Sometimes  it  was  done  by  giving  a  dose  so 
nasty  that  the  devil  could  not  abide  in  the  same 


38     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

body  with  it.  Sometimes  it  was  done  by  using  magic 
names.  Such  methods  did  not  exhaust  the  medical 
practice  of  the  ancient  world,  but  they  were  so 
widespread  as  to  enable  us  to  appreciate  easily  the 
great  difference  between  the  age  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  our  own  as  regards  scientific  attainments. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  call  attention  to  those 
great  differences  of  view  of  the  universe  and  life 
which  have  been  wrought  by  physical  and  biological 
investigations.  True,  the  older  philosophers,  some- 
times in  almost  startling  fashion,  anticipated  the 
general  philosophy  we  have  built  upon  scientific 
discoveries,  but  no  one  would  deny  that  a  new  intel- 
lectual age  began  with  the  publication  of  Darwin's 
''Origin  of  Species"  and  the  resulting  supremacy  of 
the  theory  of  evolution.  Thereafter  men  increasingly 
have  thought  in  terms  of  process. 

The  conception  of  the  orderly,  genetic  succession  of 
purposeful  changes  played  no  role  in  the  stratum  of 
society  to  which  Judaism  and  the  gospel  appealed. 
The  eclipse  was  more  significant  than  the  sunrise. 
In  our  modern  world  the  wonder  born  of  awe  of  the 
unexplored  universe  has  all  but  disappeared.  Our 
capacity  for  surprise  has  been  ruined  by  the  spectro- 
scope, radium,  the  X-ray,  and  the  experiments  of 
Professor  Loeb.     There  is  no  man  so  bold  as  to 


THE    MODERN   MAN  39 

prophesy  how  deep  our  science  with  its  theory  of 
evolution  may  probe  into  the  mysteries  of  existence. 
Even  the  ether  itself  is  threatened.  One  after 
another  the  great  secrets  of  the  universe  are  being  dis- 
closed, at  least  in  the  sense  that  we  can  tell  the 
conditions  under  which  certain  phenomena  invariably 
appear.  Our  ignorance  of  the  remainder  no  longer 
is  lightened  by  the  appeal  to  devils  or  angels.  We 
are  classifying  phenomena  so  rapidly  as  to  be  con- 
vinced that  such  classification  means  knowledge,  and 
that  the  universe  is  everywhere  sane  and  law-abiding. 
Health  and  disease  have  become  matters  of  investi- 
gation, and  in  so  far  as  they  involve  the  problem 
of  evil,  they  have  become  phases  of  the  all-absorbing 
search  for  the  final  unity  of  the  evolving  cosmos. 

At  the  first  glance  this  process  appears  full  of  con- 
tradictions. It  is  not  steady  or  unbroken.  It  has  its 
eddies  and  its  counter  currents.  Progress  is  some- 
times more  than  offset  by  degeneracy.  But  degener- 
acy in  turn  is  offset  by  regeneration  and  the  great 
movement  begins  again  although  not  always  in  the 
same  quarter  in  which  it  has  suffered  a  check.  This 
fact  illustrates  the  apparent  atomistic,  divisive  char- 
acter of  change.  The  world  of  nature  as  well  as  of 
history  seems  full  of  unrelated  and,  to  any  science 
we   as    yet   possess,    unrelatable    movements    and 


40  THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

counter-movements.     There  is  no  such  patent  evo- 
lution as  some  enthusiasts  assume. 

Yet  in  the  face  of  these  perplexities,  the  creative 
thinkers  of  all  time  have  held  tenaciously  to  a  world 
of  purpose  and  order,  of  unity  and  meaning,  above 
if  not  within  the  congeries  of  changes.  History  is 
more  than  events  in  time.  Only  in  the  perception  of 
ordered  change  can  thought  rise  above  mere  observa- 
tion. And  this  unity  compels  the  acceptance  of  itself 
despite  all  the  protests  of  those  who  would  deny  it  and 
allow  existence  to  ravel  out  into  innumerable  unre- 
lated existences.  History  itself,  whether  it  be  of  the 
realm  of  impersonal  forces  or  of  the  realm  of  human 
life,  compels  belief  in  this  spiritual  order  that  gives 
coherency  to  all  our  experiences.  But  this  compul- 
sion is  due  to  the  acceptance  of  the  unity  of  process 
rather  than  that  of  states. 

Humanity  belongs  to  both  these  orders.  On  the 
one  side  it  is  a  mass  of  impersonal  atoms  and  forces 
subject  to  chemical  and  physical  changes.  On  the 
other  it  is  possessed  of  identities  with  this  spiritual 
life  that  it  has  discovered  as  the  source  of  unity  and 
timelessness.  Its  history,  whether  one  looks  at  the 
individual  or  the  race,  is  a  progress  from  the  pre- 
ponderance of  the  one  to  the  dominance  of  the 
other.     As   living  organisms  men  recapitulate  the 


THE    MODERN   MAN  4I 

history  of  other  living  organisms ;  as  spiritual  beings 
they  differ  from  all  other  life.  Just  when  the 
change  from  animal  to  animal-spiritual  life  occurred 
science  cannot  tell  us  with  assurance.  Whether 
life  itself  by  God's  will  blossomed  into  a  spiritual 
person,  or  whether  the  spiritual  nature  came  by 
some  divine  creative  fiat,  is  of  no  vital  significance. 
Religion  looks  not  to  origins,  but  to  destinies.  It 
asks  not  Whence  but  Whither.  But  its  answer  to  this 
question  of  questions  must  be  in  strictest  conformity 
to  what  we  know  of  human  life  and  its  history. 
For  only  thus  can  it  come  into  that  conformity 
with  reality  which  the  modern  man  demands.  It, 
too,  like  science  must  recognize  process. 

But  religion  looks  forward  to  the  outcome  of  that 
process  and  endeavors  to  direct  mankind  thither. 
Therein  lies  its  task  and  its  legitimacy.  For  the 
spiritual  life  is  no  abstraction.  It  is  as  concrete  as 
humanity.  To  realize  its  powers,  to  define  its  de- 
pendence upon  and  superiority  to  merely  physical  life, 
to  inspire  and  make  possible  its  growth  by  bringing 
it  into  dynamic  relations  with  the  equally  real  and 
concrete  Spiritual  Life  of  the  universe,  this  is  the 
supreme  function  of  religion. 

It  is  only  the  corollary  of  this  conception  of  process 
that  every  approach  our  modern  world  makes  to  its 


42  THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

problems  should  be  through  history.  Nothing  is 
known  apart  from  its  relations.  The  present  is  only 
one  phase  of  a  continuous  process.  Nothing  in  the 
finite  world  merely  is;  it  has  become  and  may  also 
be  becoming.  Knowledge  of  any  sort  must  therefore 
involve  an  account  of  the  forces  from  which  a  fact 
under  discussion  arose  or  at  least  by  which  it  was 
conditioned. 

This  historical  method  is  of  first  importance 
throughout  the  entire  field  of  investigation,  but  in  the 
region  of  religion  it  is  all  but  revolutionary.  We 
cannot  as  yet  see  just  what  its  full  effect  is  to  be, 
but  already  it  is  a  sine  qua  non  of  an  understanding 
of  the  doctrines,  rites,  and  institutions  of  all  faiths. 
Under  its  influence  the  sacred  literatures  are  studied 
in  genealogical  relations,  and  are  traced  to  their 
beginnings  far  back  of  written  histories,  and  the 
spiritual  order  that  transcends  the  natural  is  seen  to 
be  not  static  but  ever  more  self-revealing. 

Sometimes,  it  is  true,  the  application  of  the  histori- 
cal method  may  overreach  itself  and  its  results  col- 
lapse because  of  their  own  weight.  It  too  often  mis- 
takes resemblances  for  genetic  relations  and  denies, 
,  at  least  implicitly,  the  creative  power  of  the  free  spirit- 
ual life.  Such  I  believe  is  true  of  some  of  the  ex- 
treme views  of  the  origin  and  nature  of  Christianity. 


THE    MODERN   MAN  43 

It  is  impossible,  for  instance,  for  me  to  see  the  rea- 
sonableness of  finding  in  almost  every  thought  and 
figure  of  the  gospel  adumbrations  of  Babylonian 
myths  of  Gilgamesh.  But  even  in  this  case  it  would 
be  unallowable  to  let  dogmatic  considerations  affect 
either  the  conclusions  or  the  method  born  of  the 
application  of  the  historical  point  of  view.  Even 
if  the  effect  of  such  study  is  to  dispell  some  of  the 
mystery  that  has  hitherto  overhung  sacred  things, 
even  though  in  some  instances  it  may  have  reduced 
sanctity  itself  to  mere  antiquity  and  have  set  forth 
too  nakedly  opposing  ideas  time  has  allowed  to 
appear  united,  the  historical  method  in  religion  has 
its  positive  as  truly  as  its  speculative  or  negative 
results.  But  whether  friendly  or  hostile  to  current 
beliefs,  it  is  a  potent  factor  in  the  modern  mind. 
For  it  is  a  correlate  of  process. 

2.  A  second  and  closely  akin  characteristic  of  the 
modern  world  is  its  conception  of  God  as  immanent  in 
this  process  rather  than  an  extra-mundane  monarch. 
Sometimes  it  is  true  this  belief  extends  over  into  a 
general  monistic  conception.  Monism,  however,  is  a 
metaphysical  concept,  and  whatever  may  be  its  in- 
fluence in  a  theological  ontology,  in  religion  a  man 
must  be  enough  of  a  practical  dualist  to  see  that  in 
the  act  of  faith  God  is  objective  to  the  human  spirit. 


\ 


44  THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

The  believer  in  God  does  not  believe  merely  in  him- 
self or  in  an  impersonal  process.  Monism  in  itself 
can  never  be  a  basis  for  a  theology.  For  in  experi- 
ence we  are  dualists.  But  monistic  or  not,  the  world 
of  thought  in  which  we  live  cannot  conceive  of  God 
as  spatially  absent  from  His  universe  any  more  than 
it  can  conceive  of  a  living  man's  consciousness  as 
spatially  absent  from  his  body.  If,  as  is  emphati- 
cally the  case,  we  are  involved  in  difficulties  when- 
ever we  try  to  think  of  God  in  terms  of  time  and 
space,  we  are  in  vastly  greater  difficulties  when  we 
think  of  Him  as  apart  from  those  energies  which  con- 
stitute that  situation  of  which  we  are  a  part. 

Religious  thinking  is  here  at  such  agreement  that 
it  may  fairly  be  said  to  have  reached  a  stage  in  its 
evolution  from  which  it  will  never  revert.  The  primi- 
tive man  thought  of  his  gods  in  terms  of  primitive 
civilization  and  knowledge.  They  lived,  so  men 
thought,  in  mountains,  and  trees,  and  fountains.  As 
civilization  advanced  men  thought  of  God  as  a 
king  dwelling  in  a  celestial  world  from  which  He 
occasionally  appeared  to  interrupt  the  ordinary 
course  of  nature,  or  sent  His  Spirit  to  chosen  indi- 
viduals. He  was  not  merely  transcendent,  he  was 
external.  Our  modern  world  thinks  of  Him  as  in  His 
world,  expressing  Himself  personally,  although  some- 


THE   MODERN   MAN  45 

times  in  forms  which  superficially  viewed  seem  im- 
personal.    And  if,  paradoxically,  just  because  He  is 
immanent  men  sometimes  find  themselves  wondering 
whether  He  is  needed,  and  too  often  are  tempted 
to  force  Him  into  inactivity  under  a  regency  of  Law, 
i    the  man  of   religious  experience  can   never  regard 
'    God  as  a  recluse.     He  finds  the  unity  presupposed 
j  by  impersonal  sciences  in  a  spiritual  order  which 
/  speaks  through  himself.     God  must  be  either  the 
personalized  Whole  or,  as  I  am  forced  rather  to 
believe,  the  Person  who,  as  over  against  our  own 
I  personalities,  expresses  Himself  in  the  Whole.     No 
religion  can  ever  suffice  that  makes  Him  anything 
less  than  ourselves.     And  we  are  persons. 

The  political  and  juristic  conceptions  of  God  per- 
sist in  our  own  day,  but  they  are  no  longer  formative 
in  constructive  religious  thinking.  Therein  is  dis- 
closed an  attitude  of  mind  that  distinguishes  the 
modern  man  of  our  day  from  him  of  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries  with  all  his  "illumination." 
The  doctrine  of  natural  rights,  whether  in  politics  or 
theology,  notwithstanding  its  efforts  to  get  behind  the 
state,  did  not  dislodge  juristic  conceptions  from  theol- 
ogy. On  the  contrary,  just  as  in  the  field  of  politics 
it  set  forth  the  natural  rights  of  a  proletariat  as  over 
against  the  legal  rights  of  king  and  noble,  did  it  in 


46  THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

the  field  of  religion  set  forth  the  rights  of  a  proletarian 
humanity  as  over  against  an  autocratic  church  and 
the  God  of  decrees.  But  once  formulated  these 
rights  became,  as  it  were,  legally  controlling.  For  this 
reason,  as  well  as  for  others,  the  eighteenth  century, 
with  all  its  revolutions  and  deism,  was  more  akin  to 
the  first  century,  even  to  the  legalized  Christianity 
of  Tertullian  and  Augustine,  than  is  ours.  A  study  of 
its  theologies  and  even  of  its  religious  negations  will 
furnish  some  of  the  best  criteria  by  which  to  judge 
how  far  removed  is  thought  since  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century  from  the  unpsychological,  un- 
historical  juristic  religious  concepts  of  all  preceding 
centuries.  Nothing  can  better  teach  one  the  diffi- 
culties which  any  positive  theology  must  at  present 
face. 

Intimately  associated  with  this  conception  of  God's 
personal  relation  with  His  world  is  the  question  of 
miracle.  The  modern  man  cannot  conceive  of  any 
break  in  the  causal,  genetic  process.  True,  he  is 
ready  to  admit  that  there  may  be  events  which  are  not 
yet  located  in  any  of  its  known  formulas,  but  in  such 
a  conception  there  is  no  place  for  that  which,  before 
its  recent  apologetic  manipulation,  the  word  miracle 
stood,  —  an  event  out  of  a  causal  series. 

If  this  were  all  that  can  be  said,  our  discussion 


THE   MODERN   MAN  47 

might  as  well  stop  here.  For  the  gospel  cannot  re- 
main the  gospel  in  its  New  Testament  sense  and 
suffer  the  loss  of  all  those  events  it  calls  "signs^'  and 
"  wonders."  That  would  conceivably  mean  even  the 
loss  of  the  historical  Jesus  himself.  Yet  on  the  other 
hand,  the  modern  mind  cannot  abandon  the  very 
presupposition  of  its  thinking  at  the  behest  of  the 
man  to  whom  the  gospel  is  inseparable  from  the 
world-view  of  the  first  Christians. 

If,  however,  we  once  drop  the  debatable  word 
''miracle"  and  use  the  word  "event"  many  difficul- 
ties vanish.  No  theist  should  object  to  such  a  change, 
for  it  not  only  clarifies  the  question  every  defender  of 
Christian  doctrine  has  attempted  to  answer,  but  it 
also  clears  the  discussion  of  a  mass  of  prejudice  and 
metaphysical  theology  that  has  gathered  about 
"miracle."  If  God  be  in  His  world,  all  events  are 
of  His  will.  They  differ  in  being  more  or  less 
classifiable.  Prove  that  an  event  occurred  and  we 
find  God  there.  He  is  as  truly  in  the  usual  as  in  the 
unique.  The  modern  man  does  not  need  the  latter 
to  justify  his  discovery  of  God  in  the  former.  What 
he  does  need  to  have  shown  him  is  that  there  is  room 
within  the  universe  of  forces  he  knows  for  the  expres- 
sion of  divine  personality  in  unique  events;  that  the 
Spiritual  Life  to  which  he  is  at  times  so  indifferent  is 


48  THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

free  from  the  law  of  physical  causality.  True,  the 
burden  of  proof  grows  the  heavier  in  proportion  as  an 
event  is  unusual.  But  no  alleged  event  can  be  regarded 
as  impossible  until  it  has  been  shown  to  be  in  actual 
contradiction,  not  to  the  general  run  of  experience 
merely,  but  to  the  great  generalizations  which  have 
been  indubitably  derived  from  nature  and  to  the 
supreme  conception  of  life  as  we  find  it  expressed  even 
in  our  own  imperfectly  free  personalities.  Break 
down  the  a  priori  objection  bom  of  an  alleged  im- 
mobility of  experience  and  the  supremacy  of  im- 
personal naturalism,  and  the  question  becomes  one  of 
testimony  pure  and  simple.  And  that,  too,  without 
the  loss  of  significance  to  the  religious  life.  Even 
though  we  no  longer  hear  His  voice  in  the  thunder, 
God  is  present  in  His  cosmos  —  the  Universal  Life 
and  Will  and  Love.  And  as  spiritual  beings  men 
may  speak  to  Him  who  is  Spirit. 

3.  If  possible  an  even  more  remarkable  character- 
istic of  our  day  is  the  growing  sense  of  social  soli- 
darity. 

At  first  glance  this  might  seem  to  be  very  similar 
to  the  conception  of  unity  present  in  the  Roman 
Empire.  The  Roman  citizen  was  the  Roman  citizen 
everywhere,  and  all  about  the  Mediterranean 
there   was   a   developing   sense   of  imperial   unity. 


THE    MODERN   MAN  49 

Bound  together  by  roads  and  the  almost  equally  well- 
defined  routes  of  the  Mediterranean,  the  great  Empire 
could  everywhere  express  itself  administratively. 
During  the  first  century  of  the  Empire  this  unity  was 
of  necessity  largely  based  upon  military  force,  but 
behind  militarism  there  was  something  far  more  vital. 
The  provinces,  although  not  possessed  of  the  rights 
of  full  citizenship,  were  none  the  less  beginning  to 
evolve  what  under  more  favorable  circumstances 
might  have  become  the  rudiments  of  a  representative 
government.  The  cities  also  were  passing  through 
an  evolution  of  municipal  equality  which,  though  at 
the  start  unobservable,  was  to  develop  in  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries  into  something  at  once  burdensome 
and  inspiring. 

Such  tendencies  undoubtedly  are  no  inconsider- 
able bond  of  union  between  the  twentieth  and  the 
first  century,  but  they  seem  almost  trivial  in  compari- 
son with  the  tremendous  social  movement  in  the 
midst  of  which  we  find  ourselves.  The  era  of  revolu- 
tion of  the  eighteenth  century  gave  rise  to  a  political 
equality  so  radical  as  all  but  to  destroy  the  superficial 
analogies  between  itself  and  the  political  equality 
of  the  Empire  under  even  Caracalla,  Constan- 
tine,  and  Justinian.  The  Roman  Empire,  despite 
the  provincial  assembly,  was  ignorant  of  the  con- 


50     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

ception  of  representative  democracy  which  has  ex- 
pressed itself  in  the  constitutional  monarchies  and 
republics  of  Europe  and  America.  It  is  true  that  in 
our  political  practice  we  are  not  quite  sure  whether 
women  ought  to  be  included  under  the  general  term 
Man,  and  the  matter  of  taxes  plays  a  considerable 
role  in  the  franchise  in  even  such  a  modern  nation  as 
Prussia.  But  we  have  no  such  distinction  as  those 
between  a  Roman  citizen  and  a  provincial,  between 
the  honestiores  and  the  humiliores.  We  have  abol- 
ished slavery,  which  was  one  of  the  recognized  in- 
stitutions of  human  society  of  the  olden  time,  and 
women  are  rapidly  achieving  industrial  as  well  as 
political  equality  with  men.  Even  the  superficial 
observer  of  society  knows  that  the  philosophy  of 
natural  rights  which  brought  about  the  revolutions 
and  republics  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  the  con- 
stitutional reforms  of  the  nineteenth  has  long  since 
passed  from  the  political  into  the  economic  and  social 
stage.  The  age  in  which  we  live  is  profoundly 
interested  in  non-political  rights. 

It  is  impossible  to  overestimate  the  extent  and  in- 
fluence of  this  new  social  feeling.  Born  as  it  is  in 
large  measure  of  the  unconscious  influence  of  Chris- 
tian idealism,  it  has  spread  far  beyond  the  confines 
of  the  church,  and  indeed,  unfortunately,  often  makes 


THE    MODERN   MAN  5 1 

the  church  itself  appear  unfraternal  or  the  possession 
of  an  economic  class.  The  rise  of  socialism  is  only 
one  phase  of  a  universal  social  consciousness  which 
none  of  us  can  escape.  We  see  ourselves  no  longer 
parts  of  a  mere  political  unity,  comparable  with 
citizenship  in  the  ancient  cities.  We  think  in  terms 
of  "situations,"  rather  than  of  isolated  individuals, 
or  even  of  individuals  and  environment.  The  exten- 
sion of  the  concepts  of  natural  law  into  history 
has  given  us  a  sense  of  solidarity  which  sometimes 
even  threatens  our  estimates  of  the  worth  of  the 
individual  himself.  We  have  begun  to  realize  that 
individualism  must  be  social  and  that  the  word 
fraternity  stands  for  something  more  than  political 
liberty  and  equality. 

4.  And,  finally,  another  characteristic  of  our  mod- 
ern world  is  its  refusal  to  accept  as  the  basis  of  truth 
authority  or  metaphysical  deduction. 

In  this  we  are  the  descendants  of  that  century 
of  philosophy  which  began  with  Kant.  The  time 
has  passed  when  any  majority  can  command  univer- 
sal obedience  by  saying,  "It  seems  good  to  us  and 
the  Holy  Ghost."  We  know  too  well  how  creeds  were 
developed  and  formulated  to  have  any  great  confidence 
in  their  finality  as  the  expressions  of  spiritual  realities, 
or  to  expect  them  to  be  understood  without  a  knowl- 


52     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

edge  of  the  philosophy,  politics,  and  persecution  from 
which  they  so  largely  sprang.  True,  the  scientific 
spirit,  despite  its  critical  habit,  has  too  often  within 
it  something  of  the  old  authoritative  temper,  and 
liberality  is  frequently  more  bigoted  than  the  views 
which  it  attacks ;  but  none  the  less  a  pronunciamento 
must  now  be  shown  to  be  true,  not  simply  "ap- 
proved." 

It  is  difficult  to  overestimate  the  significance  of 
this  habit  of  mind  of  our  modern  world.  It  has 
long  since  ceased  to  be  merely  academic.  It  shapes 
itself  everywhere.  You  will  find  it  in  the  anarchist 
and  the  so-called  Bohemian  as  truly  as  in  the  man  of 
the  laboratory;  in  India  and  Japan  as  well  as  in 
Europe  and  America.  Even  the  Roman  Catholic 
turns  Modernist,  and  the  educated  Mahommedan, 
rationalist.  Such  an  emancipation  brings  its  blessing, 
but  no  less  truly  does  it  bring  its  miseries.  Who 
has  not  seen  some  soul  in  spiritual  agony  as  the 
foundations  built  of  authority  totter,  yet  hesitating  to 
trust  to  foundations  built  of  rationalized  experience ! 
But  whether  helpful  or  injurious,  the  spirit  of  criticism 
and  liberty  is  here,  and  we  cannot,  even  if  we  would, 
escape  its  control.  The  vote  of  the  church  can  no 
longer  make  us  believe  that  the  sun  moves  around 
the  world,  and  the  vote  of  a  scientific  association 


THE    MODERN   MAN  53 

cannot  make  us  believe  that  anything  is  true  which 
denies  the  evidence  of  systematized  experiment.  The 
doctrine  of  a  uniformly  authoritative  Bible  is  being 
replaced  by  the  inspiring  sense  of  the  spiritual  worth 
of  the  Bible  as  discovered  through  historico-literary 
criticism  and  the  experience  of  the  Christian  com- 
munity. The  modem  man  yields  only  to  that  he 
finds  to  be  real. 

Here,  too,  we  hear  struck  still  another  new  note. 
The  modern  world  believes  that  to  be  real  which  has 
been  found  by  methodical  procedure  and  which  can 
be  so  correlated  with  the  sane  conclusions  of  normal 
experience  and  widespread  induction  as  to  make  life 
richer  in  knowledge  and  the  power  of  progressive 
self-expression.  Agnosticism,  though  moribund  as  a 
philosophy,  is  but  one  phase  of  that  exaggerated 
caution  which  our  scientific  spirit  begets.  Since  the 
days  of  Kant  we  are  slow  to  be  too  positive  about 
matters  which  lie  beyond  the  range  of  the  "practical 
reason,"  i.e.  of  experiment  and  methodical  test. 
Empiricism  has  reached  over  into  philosophy  and 
\  given  us  pragmatism.  Metaphysics,  like  ecclesiasti- 
I  cal  authority,  has  been  supplemented  if  not  replaced 
by  that  type  of  philosophy  which  finds  its  ultimates 
in  values  rather  than  in  alleged  axioms  or  intui- 
tions. 


54     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

These  four  basal  elements  of  the  world-view  mark 
off  the  modern  world  from  the  world  of  the  New 
Testament.  But  they  do  much  more.  They  make 
it  difficult  if  not  impossible  for  our  age  to  use  the  pre- 
suppositions that  were  embodied  in  and  gave  color 
to  the  thought  of  its  predecessor.  The  difficulty 
clearly  is  not  born  of  theology  but  of  widening  social 
experience  and  knowledge.  Just  as  the  men  of  the 
New  Testament  times  could  not  free  themselves 
from  their  heritage  of  social  mind,  and  the  men  of  the 
twelfth  century  could  not  break  with  the  fascinating 
dream  of  imperial  unity,  do  the  men  of  to-day  find 
themselves  subject  to  the  social  mind  from  which 
their  thoughts  sprang  and  of  which  they  are  a  part. 

II 

Who  then  is  the  "modem  man"? 

I.  Certainly  not  the  man  who  is  merely  living  now. 
Humanity,  as  you  ordinarily  meet  it,  is  an  interesting 
combination  of  survivals,  many  of  them  the  ruling 
characteristics  of  periods  long  since  passed.  If  a 
man  will  take  the  trouble  really  to  get  acquainted 
with  people  who  are  in  his  own  social  circle,  he  will 
find  that  there  are  representatives  of  every  conceiv- 
able form  of  thinking,  from  that  of  the  most  advanced 
specialist  in  the  very  van  of  discovery  to  that  of  primi- 


THE    MODERN  MAN  55 

tive  man.  For  it  will  not  do  to  look  for  primitive 
men  and  women  among  the  uncultured  classes  ex- 
clusively. You  will  find  them  the  next  time  you  go 
out  to  an  afternoon  tea.  There  is  many  a  primitive 
man  who  keeps  a  valet,  or  rather  whose  valet  keeps 
him.  In  point  of  view  of  the  conventions  he  is 
infallibly  well  informed,  but  his  passions,  his  ideas, 
his  judgments  of  humanity,  his  estimate  of  the  domi- 
nant motives  of  life,  his  standards  of  right  and  wrong, 
are  those  of  man  in  the  savage  state.  To  many 
men  and  women  civilization  means  simply  pressed 
trousers  and  Paris  fashions.  Their  outer  selves  are 
as  charming  as  possible;  their  inner  selves  are  rein- 
carnations of  Ab,  the  cave  man.  There  are  plenty  of 
people  whose  ideas  are  those  of  Genghis  Khan. 
True,  they  do  not  count  heads  as  a  measure  of  their 
success ;  but  if  they  are  men  they  count  dollars,  and 
if  they  are  women  they  count  hearts.  That  is  to  say, 
their  primary  interests  are  those  of  the  marauder. 
There  are  other  people  going  about  their  daily 
tasks  with  circumspection  and  with  careful  regard 
for  the  conventions,  yet  deep  within  themselves  they 
cherish  a  view  of  the  universe  and  of  God,  which  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  is  fetishism.  They  do  not  dare 
to  say  their  children  are  well  without  knocking  three 
times  on  wood,  and  upon  no  consideration  would  they 


56     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

walk  under  a  ladder  or  sit  among  thirteen  at  table. 
So  far  as  they  live  under  the  control  of  such  presuppo- 
sitions they  are  reincarnating  in  our  complex  civiliza- 
tion the  superstitions  of  primitive  society. 

In  fact  it  is  hard  for  any  of  us  to  escape  thinking  and 
living  as  survivals  of  early  ages.  We  still  point  up  to 
heaven,  and  we  still  throw  rice  after  newly  married 
couples. 

2.  Nor  is  he  alone  the  modern  man  who  is  in 
revolt  against  the  past.  It  is  true  that  men  of  this 
type  in  appropriating  the  name  are  not  altogether 
without  warrant.  Liberty  to  select  his  name  may 
fairly  be  accorded  any  man  at  his  philosophical 
christening.  But  such  an  appropriation  of  a  term  is 
somewhat  ungenerous,  in  that  it  implies  that  only  the 
iconoclast  can  claim  to  possess  the  modern  spirit. 
Even  if,  as  von  Hartmann  expects,  the  future  may 
develop  an  attitude  of  mind  that  is  genuinely  pessi- 
mistic, we  have  not  yet  universally  come  to  feel  that 
the  universe  is  the  product  of  a  supreme  will  that 
needs  the  help  of  humanity  to  get  itself  reunited  to  a 
supreme  reason.  It  is  more  reasonable  to  regard  the 
modern  man  as  the  "free  spirit"  of  Nietzsche,  who 
would  erect  an  entirely  new  ethics  on  the  ruins  of  our 
modern  society,  and  who  claims  already  to  have 
grasped  a  meaning  of  the  universe  which  is  "  beyond 


THE    MODERN   MAN  57 

good  and  evil."  But  here  again  the  use  of  the  term 
is  too  considerably  narrowed,  and  is  made  to  include 
only  those  qualities  which  can  appeal  to  a  particular 
class  of  men  out  of  sympathy  with  too  many  of  the 
really  constructive  forces  of  to-day,  and  in  particular 
too  devoted  to  a  materialism  that  denies  to  the  super- 
human spiritual  life  a  freedom  it  predicates  of  the 
human.  We  must  seek  a  definition  of  wider  extension. 
3.  A  formal  definition  of  modernness  is  not  diffi- 
cult. He  is  the  modern  man  of  any  period  who  is 
controlled  by  the  forces  which  are  making  To-morrow. 
In  a  period  like  that  of  the  Maccabees  he  was  the 
modern  man  who  embodied  the  ideals  which  made 
the  little  city  state  of  Jerusalem  into  the  kingdom  of 
John  Hyrcanus.  In  the  days  of  Julius  Caesar  he 
sympathized  with  the  growing  unity  which  culminated 
in  the  imperialism  of  the  Antonines  and  the  legislation 
of  Justinian;  in  the  twelfth  century  he  championed 
the  rise  of  the  free  cities;  in  the  sixteenth  century 
he  was  swayed  by  the  forces  born  of  the  new  learning, 
the  new  individualism,  and  the  new  world;  in  the 
eighteenth  century  he  enforced  the  political  conse- 
quences of  the  doctrine  of  natural  rights  and  had  a 
share  in  freeing  thought  from  ecclesiastical  control 
and  the  state  from  an  outgrown  feudalism  and  an 
absolute  monarchy. 


58  THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

The  modern  man  of  to-day  is  he  who  is  controlled 
by  those  ideals  which  are  transforming  his  inherited 
world  into  the  newer  order  which  his  children  will 
inherit.  He  is  the  child  as  well  as  the  maker  of  To- 
morrow. That  is  to  say,  he  is  the  man  who  is  con- 
trolled by  the  four  outstanding  transforming  charac- 
teristics of  the  age  which  have  already  been  described. 
Such  control  may  be  conscious  or  unconscious,  but  he 
can  no  more  help  thinking  of  God  as  finding  eternal 
self-expression  within  the  universe  than  the  Hebrew 
could  think  of  Jehovah  directing  the  affairs  of  the 
world  from  heaven.  He  thinks  as  instinctively 
in  terms  of  process  as  the  ancient  world  thought 
in  terms  of  static  being.  He  may  be  neither  a  social- 
ist nor  a  social  reformer,  but  he  feels  the  growing  sense 
of  brotherhood  and  cannot  think  of  social  relations 
in  terms  of  insulated  individualism.  He  may  not  be 
technically  a  scientist,  but  he  knows  that  truth  can- 
not be  based  on  authority  other  than  that  of  reality 
itself. 

Ill 

Two  objections  among  others  may  be  raised  to  this 
definitioa 

I.  In  the  first  place  it  may  be  said  that  it  gives 
too  little  prominence  to  theological  reconstruction. 


THE    MODERN    MAN  59 

Social  sympathies  have  not  always  characterized 
theologians,  and  it  is  clear  that  if  they  are  to  be 
recognized  as  conditioning  the  acceptance  of  the 
gospel,  new  and  troublesome  questions  will  arise. 
For  we  must  face  the  actual  practicability  of  a  Chris- 
tian ethic.  Theology  has  seldom  judged  it  necessary 
to  raise  such  an  issue.  It  has  been  content  to  deal 
with  individual  spiritual  experience,  the  rewards  and 
punishments  of  the  future,  and  the  clothing  of  some 
philosophy  with  scriptural  expressions. 

The  answer  to  such  an  objection  is  very  simple : 
It  is  beside  the  mark.  ''Modern  man"  is  not  co- 
extensive with  "theologian."  Important  as  is  his 
function  in  the  religious  world  the  theologian  is 
far  enough  from  being  the  controlling  factor  in  to- 
day's religious  thought,  and  the  gospel  is  face  to  face 
with  questions  other  than  those  he  raises.  The 
really  vital  religious  issues  are  those  set  by  the  social 
order  itself,  and  these  cannot  be  answered  by  the  use 
of  exclusively  theological  methods  and  presupposi- 
tions, but  by  the  test  of  life  itself.  Theology  must 
be  brought  to  see  that  our  day's  interest  in  meta- 
physical definition  is  not  so  intense  as  its  interest  in 
social  reconstruction.  Our  modern  world  has  as 
little  patience  with  Aristotelian  syllogisms  as  with  the 
literature  of  Euphuism.     But  it  has  a  profound  and 


6o     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

ever  growing  interest  in  human  needs.  If  theology 
would  not  die  of  intellectual  dry-rot,  it  must  be- 
come biological  and  social. 

2.  The  second  possible  objection  is  the  precise 
opposite  of  the  first.  It  may  be  urged  that  such  a 
conception  of  the  modern  man  gives  too  much  promi- 
nence to  theology.  A  belief  in  an  immanent  God, 
it  may  be  objected,  so  narrows  the  field  as  to  limit 
discussion  of  the  acceptability  of  the  gospel  to  those 
already  predisposed  to  religion.  And  thus  the  atheist 
and  the  agnostic  are  excluded. 

Such  a  limitation,  however,  is  unavoidable.  True, 
some  "modern  men"  are  thoroughgoing  champions 
of  naturalism  and  to  them  any  call  to  recognize  the 
inner  world  of  spirit,  in  which  and  because  of  which  the 
inconsistencies,  the  minutis,  and  the  otherwise  mean- 
ingless infinitude  of  changes  find  order  and  meaning, 
would  be  idle.  But  such  men  can  find  their  philoso- 
phy satisfying  only  as  they  neglect  or  distort  the  super- 
naturalistic  facts  of  the  spiritual  life,  the  timeless  values 
that  gleam  forth  from  all  events  in  time.  Those  who 
believe  in  God  and  the  world  of  spiritual  freedom, 
be  that  belief  never  so  unlike  that  of  conventional 
theology,  are  the  only  persons  to  whom  the  gospel  can 
make  its  appeal.  And  this  class  forms  the  overwhelm- 
ing majority  of  those  who  share  in  the  new  social 


THE    MODERN   MAN  6l 

mind.  Atheists  and  confirmed  agnostics  there  may- 
be, but  they  are  few  enough,  and  I  am  persuaded  that 
many  even  of  them  would  prefer  to  accept  the  gospel 
if  they  judged  it  amenable  to  the  ordinary  laws  of 
thought.  Judging  this  impossible  they  prefer  the 
religion  of  philosophy  to  the  religion  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  prevailing  attitude  of  the  modern 
man  toward  Christianity  is  one  of  intellectual  con- 
fusion, but  of  moral  sympathy.  Moral  discontent, 
apprehensive  curiosity  as  to  the  outcome  of  death,  and 
that  sense  of  dependence  and  helplessness  which 
every  man  sooner  or  later  feels  in  the  presence  of  the 
universe,  can  always  be  counted  upon  as  motives  to 
lead  thoughtful  men  to  give  respectful  attention  to 
any  serious  presentation  of  the  real  message  of  Jesus. 
The  church  has  a  real  mission  to  men  and  women 
who  are  utterly  out  of  sympathy  with  religion,  but 
it  owes  quite  as  important  and  even  more  pressing 
service  to  that  rapidly  growing  class  who  consciously 
or  unconsciously  find  their  faith  imperiled  by  the  re- 
ligious implications  of  the  modern  mind.  Sometimes 
such  persons  most  irritatingly  boast  of  modernism. 
Sometimes,  equally  unfortunately  for  their  own  peace 
of  mind,  they  lament  their  inability  to  think  in  terms 
of  those  older  presuppositions  which  make  the  gospel 
so  easily  acceptable.    Sometimes  they  grow  impatient 


62  THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

and  arrogant,  but  at  heart  every  such  man  knows  him- 
self to  be  morally  imperfect  and  longs  for  the  peace 
that  comes  from  the  harmony  of  religious  conceptions 
with  those  of  the  philosophy  and  science  he  has 
come  to  see  are  not  to  be  denied.  And  it  is  this  four- 
fold attitude  of  mind  with  which  the  gospel  must  be 
shown  and  can  be  shown  to  be  consonant.  If  we 
are  to  bring  the  gospel  to  the  modern  man,  we  must 
set  forth  the  permanent  values  of  the  Christianity  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  above  all  of  the  historical 
Jesus  himself,  in  the  light  of  evolution,  divine 
immanence,  social  solidarity,  and  a  sense  of  reality 
bom  of  scientific  method  and  a  perception  of  worth. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  CONTENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

The  old  gospel  faces  a  new  age.  Therein  lies  its 
problem.  But  is  it  worth  answering?  Why  go 
back  thus  to  the  New  Testament  and  seek  to  recover 
and  reenforce  the  primitive  eschatological  gospel? 
Why  not  rather  seek  to  discover  truth  by  an  explora- 
tion of  religious  experience  as  we  know  it  to-day, 
using  the  New  Testament  as  one  of  its  many  sources  ? 
Or,  on  the  other  hand,  why  should  we  not  accept  some 
approved  theology  and  find  peace  in  submission  to 
ecclesiastical  authority  ? 

Such  questions  are  legitimate.  The  gospel  is  not 
identical  with  Christianity,  if  that  term  be  used  to 
represent  the  present  religion  that  originated  in  the 
gospel  but  has  taken  up  elements  from  civilization. 
But,  whether  we  like  it  or  not,  a  truly  evangelical 
Christianity  is  not  only  the  religion  most  susceptible 
of  philosophical  justification,  but  it  is  a  religion  that 
will  rise  and  fall  with  the  New  Testament.  Even  a 
better  religion  than  that  of  Jesus  and  Paul  would 

63 


64  THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

not  be  theirs.  For  my  part  I  am  perfectly  ready  to 
substitute  something  better  for  the  gospel  as  soon  as 
it  appears,  but  I  am  as  yet  unable  to  imagine  anything 
more  final  than  the  religion  of  Jesus  as  found  in  the 
New  Testament.  Christianity  as  we  know  it  still 
fails  to  represent  that  religion.  Jesus  still  leads  the 
spiritual  life.  The  religion  of  the  future  must  be 
evangelical  or  it  will  be  socially  powerless.  At  all 
events  that  seems  to  be  the  testimony  of  two  thousand 
years  of  experiment.  During  those  two  millenia 
every  conceivable  substitute  for  the  gospel  has  been 
tried.  Docetism,  gnosticism,  Ophitism,  and  Mani- 
cheeism  in  the  ancient  church ;  chiliasm,  fanaticism, 
rationalism,  and  anathematizing  sects  of  every  sort 
in  the  later  church,  all  have  failed.  Only  those 
religious  bodies  who  have  preserved  the  continuity 
of  that  doctrinal  development  which  embodies 
religion  as  it  is  set  forth  in  the  gospel  of  the  New 
Testament  are  to-day  of  commanding  significance. 
I  cannot  believe  that  it  will  be  otherwise  in  the 
future.  The  Christians  of  to-morrow  will  differ 
from  us  in  many  particulars,  but  they  will  be  at  one 
with  the  spiritual  life  as  it  is  portrayed  in  the  gospel, 
or  else  they  will  shrivel  into  esoteric  groups  united 
for  the  cooperative  support  of  private  chaplains. 
The  modern  man  has  vested  interests  in  Christ  and 


THE    CONTENT    OF    THE    GOSPEL  65 

the  gospel  he  would  be  foolish  to  surrender  simply 
because  he  finds  it  difficult  to  realize  upon  them. 
For  this  if  for  no  other  reason  he  must  be  brought 
to  take  the  gospel  seriously.  It  must  be  no  mere 
theological  debate  into  which  he  is  introduced.  If 
the  gospel  is  not  to  be  relegated  by  the  educated  class 
to  the  antiquarians  as  a  naive  superstition,  we  must 
frankly  face  the  situation  set  by  the  new  social  mind 
and  discover  a  method  by  which  men,  without  iso- 
lating the  world  of  religion  from  the  world  of  science, 
may  hold  to  the  teachings  of  the  gospel  as  elements  of 
a  religious  world-view  that  will  bring  not  only  intellec- 
tual peace  but  spiritual  uplift.  Skepticism  is  not  the 
sign-manual  of  spiritual  enlightenment.  We  believe 
as  truly  as  we  interrogate.  Let  us,  then,  count  our 
assets  as  honestly  as  we  count  our  liabilities.  How- 
ever numerous  our  theologies,  there  is  only  one 
gospel. 

Such  a  task  must  be  undertaken  irenically,  con- 
structively and  patiently,  in  full  sympathy  and  utmost 
cooperation  with  men  of  unscientific  and  unphilo- 
sophical  mind.  If  there  is  to  be  a  reunited  church 
every  Barnabas  and  Paul  must  give  the  right  hand 
of  fellowship  to  every  James  and  Peter.  Your 
born  radical  cannot  understand  why  the  average 
man  is  so  slow  to  break  connection  with  the  past  in 


66     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

any  phase  of  life  and  particularly  in  the  region  of 
religion.  He  needs  to  be  taught  sympathy  with  those 
who  are  wisely  conservative  and  yet  whose  loyalty 
to  the  things  of  the  spirit  is  as  intense  as  his  own.  On 
the  other  hand,  those  who  would  estop  real  thinking  on 
religion  by  the  assertion  that  "what  was  good  enough 
for  my  saintly  mother  is  good  enough  for  me"  also 
need  to  see  that  the  life  of  the  spirit  is  not  iden- 
tical with  its  temporal  expression.  The  difficulty 
with  such  an  attitude  of  mind  lies  not  in  the  regard 
which  the  man  has  for  what  was  sacred  to  his 
mother,  but  rather  in  the  fact  that  he  cannot  think 
as  did  his  mother.  More  than  that,  his  own  son, 
lacking  any  such  ties  of  sentiment,  is  in  imminent 
danger  of  falling  into  religious  indifference.  If  the 
children  of  religious  reformers  are  very  likely  to  be 
spiritual  dilettanti,  the  children  of  religious  reaction- 
aries are  likely  to  be  Epicureans. 

I  I 

Two  current  methods  of  determining  the  relation  of 
the  gospel  to  our  age  are  easily  recognized ;  the  liter- 
alistic  and  the  negative. 

I.  There  are  plenty  of  people  who  are  attempting  a 
divorce  of  their  religious  life  from  their  best  intellec- 
tual efforts.     But  such  divorce  can  result  only  in 


THE    CONTENT    OF   THE    GOSPEL  67 

misery.  When  religion  becomes  simply  a  matter 
of  sentiment,  unregulated  and  unapproved  by  a  man's 
best  thinking,  it  begins  to  lose  its  power  to  inspire 
Christlike  morality. 

A  merely  superficial  examination  of  the  religious 
world  shows  the  truth  of  this  generalization.  On  the 
one  side  there  is  an  increasing  reverence  for  reality, 
or,  if  reality  is  beyond  our  reach,  a  frank  avowal  of 
ignorance.  On  the  other  side  there  is  a  strong 
pressure  being  brought  to  bear  upon  the  religious 
man,  which,  whatever  its  terminology,  amounts  to 
this :  Stop  thinking  over  fundamentals !  Accept  cer- 
tain doctrines  as  final  because  the  church  has  held 
them  in  the  past  and  it  is  impossible  either  to  disprove 
or  to  prove  them.  Rest  content  in  enthusiasm  for 
religion  as  distinct  from  theology.  Accept  the  au- 
thority of  the  church  and  cease  the  attempt  to  find 
reasons  where  submission  to  ecclesiastical  decisions 
alone  can  bring  peace.  Was  it  not  Augustine,  the 
father  of  both  Roman  and  Protestant  orthodoxy, 
who  said,  "I  would  not  believe  even  the  gospel  ex- 
cept the  authority  of  the  Catholic  church  moved  me 
thereto"?  jir 

It  is  natural  that  such  an  attitude  of  mind  should 
express  itself  as  hostile  to  any  type  of  theology  except 
that  formed  by  a  literalistic  use  of  the  New  Testa- 


68  THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

ment.  Unwilling  to  abandon  formulas  hallowed  by 
the  reverence  of  the  past,  its  champions  insist  that, 
regardless  of  modern  views,  certain  things  are  to 
be  received  on  authority  and  are  not  to  be  sub- 
jected to  the  ordinary  processes  of  scientific  testing 
and  systematization.  The  New  Testament  is  to 
be  carried  over  bodily  into  our  religious  thinking. 
Under  the  guise  of  a  loyalty  to  the  "old  gospel" 
there  is  thus  propagated  an  enthusiasm  which  too 
frequently  leaves  its  possessor  hostile  to  a  sponta- 
neous expression  of  his  spiritual  life  in  the  concepts 
of  his  own  day,  clinging  to  beliefs  which  can  be  held 
only  at  the  cost  of  that  view  of  the  world  which  is 
dominating  the  thinking  of  to-day  and  will  even  more 
dominate  the  thinking  of  to-morrow. 

Whenever  such  a  citizen  of  the  world  of  churches 
becomes  a  citizen  of  the  world  of  laboratories  he 
encounters  great  difficulties.  Too  frequently  he  is 
swept  over  into  complete  distrust  of  his  older  faith. 
Chemistry  and  physics,  biology  and  history,  conspire 
to  aid  the  triumph  of  naturalism.  Without  properly 
stopping  to  consider  the  foolishness  of  such  an  act, 
many  a  man  who  has  been  forced  from  a  literalistic 
use  of  the  gospel  has  turned  away  from  the  Bible  in 
much  the  same  way  as  that  in  which  he  turns  from 
the  sacred  writings  of  other  people.     The  difficulties 


THE    CONTENT    OF    THE    GOSPEL  69 

which  beset  his  olden-time  religious  enthusiasm  have 
been  magnified,  and  he  relegates  Christian  faith  to 
children  and  the  masses  and  turns  to  Matter  and 
the  great  Unknown. 

The  subjection  of  the  spiritual  life  to  a  literalistic 
use  of  the  eschatological  gospel,  however,  does  not 
always  result  in  such  unfortunate  agnosticism.  It 
also  persists  in  the  case  of  men  who  either  deliber- 
ately or  instinctively  have  refused  to  come  under  the 
influence  of  our  modern  world-view.  The  only 
serious  concession  which  they  would  make  to  the 
world  of  science  is  as  to  the  time  of  the  second  coming 
of  Jesus.  This  event  Christians  of  this  theological 
type  are  ready  to  hold  was  seen  by  the  apostles  in  a 
^'prophetic  perspective"  and  therefore  out  of  precise 
chronological  relations.  Conceptions  of  this  sort 
obviously  imply  an  abandonment  of  the  modern 
world  as  constituted  by  science,  though  they  do  not 
always  involve  the  complete  subjection  of  the  life  of 
the  spirit  to  the  bondage  of  the  letter.  Yet  there  are 
thousands  of  men  and  women  of  noblest  Christian 
character,  of  splendid  moral  enthusiasm  and  religious 
earnestness,  who  believe  in  a  hell  of  literal  fire,  in  a 
personal  devil,  in  demoniacal  possession,  in  the  abso- 
lute inerrancy  of  all  the  Biblical  writings,  in  the 
creation  of  the  world  in  six  days,  in   the  physical 


70     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

coming  of  Christ  in  the  sky,  and  in  the  materialistic 
resurrection  of  the  body  through  a  miraculous  re- 
combination of  its  original  or  other  particles.  Such 
persons  may  be  modern  to  their  finger  tips  when  it 
comes  to  business,  but  religiously  and  philosophically 
they  are  to  all  intents  and  purposes  citizens  of  the  first 
century  of  our  era.  Theologically  speaking,  they 
are  contemporary  but  not  modern. 

No  serious  thinker  can  fail  to  respect  such  loyalty 
to  a  literalistic  gospel  or  to  seek  to  emulate  the 
earnest  religion  it  engenders.  You  will  find  it  in  the 
hearts  of  consecrated  evangelists,  lay  workers,  Sal- 
vation Army  lasses  and  American  Volunteers.  But 
what  can  be  done  in  the  case  of  a  man  who  cannot 
share  in  such  indifference  to  the  modern  world? 
Shall  he  be  forbidden  the  kingdom  of  God  except  as 
he  first  rejects  his  science  and  his  belief  of  the  God  of 
Law?  Must  he  who  passionately,  even  heroically, 
holds  to  the  absoluteness  of  the  supranatural,  time- 
less, spiritual  life,  be  forced  to  clothe  his  faith  in 
symbols  he  believes  to  be  but  relative  and  unsatis- 
fying? 

2.  At  the  other  extreme  from  these  who  thus 
separate  religion  from  thinking  in  the  interests  of  a 
literalistic  interpretation  of  the  gospel  are  those  who 
hold  aloof  from  the  gospel  on  the  ground  that  it  is 


THE    CONTENT    OF    THE    GOSPEL  7I 

utterly  inconsistent  with  current  science  and  philoso- 
phy. They  emphasize  the  difference  in  the  character 
of  the  data  given  and  demanded  by  science  and 
theology  respectively  and  discredit  religious  certitude. 
There  is,  it  is  true,  among  such  persons  a  growing  dis- 
position to  recognize  religion  as  inherently  human. 
But  interest  in  the  psychology  and  history  of  religion 
is  too  often  seen  to  culminate  in  a  pseudo-philosophy 
that  holds  that  religious  experience  is  but  a  phase 
of  sex-  and  social-development  To  persons  of  this 
type,  the  gospel,  in  any  approach  to  the  sense  that 
we  have  seen  it  held  in  the  ancient  church,  is  a  mat- 
ter of  merely  antiquarian  interest.  At  the  best  they 
regard  it  as  a  sort  of  "suggestion"  that  may  help  the 
unsophisticated  to  regain  his  health. 

II 

We  are  sometimes  given  to  understand  that  there 
is  no  third  alternative;  that  either  we  must  reject 
the  gospel  of  the  historical  Jesus  in  the  interest  of 
science,  or  reject  science  in  the  interest  of  the  historical 
gospel.  To  the  student  of  history,  however,  such  an 
antithesis  is  not  exclusive.  He  knows  that  there  is  a 
third  alternative,  that  of  true  conservatism ;  viz.  such 
an  historical  evaluation  of  the  gospel  as  it  stands  in 
the  New  Testament  as  will  disclose  both  its  histor- 


72     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

ical  and  its  timeless  realities  and  will  make  possible 
a  formulation  of  its  content  in  modern  terms  and  in 
accordance  with  constructive  principles  which  are 
the  equivalents  of  the  controlling  expositions  of  Jesus 
and  his  message  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament. 
I.  Such  a  method  involves :  — 

(a)  The  discovery  by  the  methods  of  historico- 
literary  criticism  of  the  oldest  records  of  the  life  of 
Jesus  and  of  the  primitive  Christian  faith. 

(b)  The  comparison  of  the  world-view  of  New  Tes- 
tament times  with  the  contents  of  such  records  and 
the  classification  of  the  elements  of  the  world-view 
found  in  the  gospel. 

(c)  The  distinction  between  such  world-view  and 
the  positive  data  of  the  spiritual  life  of  the  gospel  it 
correlates  or  interprets. 

(d)  The  discovery  by  comparison  and  other  tests 
of  the  elements  of  such  world-view  as  are  actually  con- 
structive principles  of  the  gospel  in  the  formulation  of 
the  content  of  the  spiritual  life  in  a  particular  histori- 
cal situation. 

(e)  The  combination  of  the  positive  data  of  the 
gospel  in  accordance  with  concepts  which  are  the 
equivalents  of  such  of  these  primitive  constructive 
and  interpretative  concepts  which  have  been  found  to 
possess  more  than  temporary  and  pictorial  value. 


THE    CONTENT    OF    THE    GOSPEL  73 

It  is  not  possible  at  this  time  to  discuss  the  critical 
process.  Such  brief  treatment  as  we  can  give  it 
must  be  postponed  to  our  discussion  of  the  historicity 
of  Jesus.  Just  now  let  us  assume  that  trustworthy- 
records  springing  from  the  followers  of  Jesus  can  be 
found  by  criticism  —  an  assumption  all  but  unques- 
tioned —  and  turn  to  the  problems  of  discovering 
what  is  the  real  content  of  the  gospel  both  as  regards 
data  and  systematizing  and  evaluating  concepts. 

2.  Starting  with  the  original  sources  resulting  from 
the  critical  process  we  shall  find  our  problem  to  no 
small  degree  simplified.  While  the  New  Testament 
as  it  stands  is  now  almost  universally  admitted  to  con- 
tain within  itself  material  which  has  been  superim- 
posed upon  the  original  teaching  of  Jesus,  this  added 
material  is  not  different  in  kind  from  the  material  in  the 
oldest  sources.  Criticism  at  this  point  removes  from 
the  gospel  distracting  details  rather  than  a  general 
world-view  such  as  that  which  has  already  been  de- 
scribed as  conditioning  the  men  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment period.  Further,  if  it  is  comparatively  easy  to 
discover  the  general  presuppositions  that  sprang 
from  the  social  mind  of  the  first  century,  it  is  quite 
as  easy  to  recognize  the  particular  controlling  con- 
cept by  which  the  first  disciples  made  intelligible 
and  real  to  themselves  the  significance  of  Jesus. 


74  THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

As  has  already  been  said,  this  controlling  concept  is 
messianism.  To  this  we  must  find  clear  equivalents 
in  our  modern  presuppositions  if  our  theology  is 
really  to  be  evangelical. 

The  comparative  study  of  religion  enables  us  to  see 
that  the  messianic  concept  as  it  appears  in  the  New 
Testament  is  derived  from  the  Judaism  of  Jesus' 
day.  For  if  we  come  up  to  the  gospel  through 
the  history  of  Jewish  eschatology  as  seen  in  the 
apocalypses  written  in  the  three  centuries  following 
the  attempt  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  to  crush  the 
Jewish  religion,  we  are  struck  by  the  almost  complete 
parallelism  between  the  two  hopes.  ^  The  two  ages, 
the  present  under  the  control  of  Satan,  who  must  be 
conquered,  a  heavenly  Jerusalem  which  is  to  be 
established  upon  the  earth  in  the  glorious  age  which 
is  to  come,  a  Christ,  a  summoning  of  the  dead  from 
Sheol  in  order  to  be  judged,  a  Judgment  Day,  a  lake 
of  fire,  a  resurrection  of  the  righteous,  all  are  in  the 
literature  of  Judaism,  which,  as  has  already  been  said, 
is  in  turn  a  development  of  literary  and  religious 
tendencies  traceable  to  older  Eastern  religions.  It 
is  impossible  to  see  in  them  the  characteristic  and 
peculiar   contribution    of    Christianity    to    religion. 

^  The  reader  who  cares  to  pursue  this  subject  may  be  referreji 
to  my  "  Messianic  Hope  in  the  New  Testament." 


THE    CONTENT    OF    THE    GOSPEL  75 

But  thanks  to  such  comparison  we  can  distinguish  the 
characteristic  facts  of  the  gospel  from  the  inherited 
interpretative  element. 

3.  As  a  result  of  the  process  involved  in  making  this 
first  distinction  between  the  content  and  the  interpreta- 
tive concepts  we  have  the  following  formulation  of  the 
positive  elements  which  are  involved  in  the  general 
conception  of  the  gospel  heralded  by  Jesus  and  elabo- 
rated by  Paul  as  a  message  of  an  assured  way  of  sal- 
vation from  evil,  sin,  and  death. 

{a)  The  God  of  Law  is  the  God  of  Love ;  that  is  to 
say,  the  universe  both  physical  and  spiritual,  in  which 
we  live,  is  an  expression  of  a  spiritual  life  that  is 
knowable,  purposeful,  and  loving. 

{h)  This  God  of  Love  is  redemptively  revealed  in 
and  by  Jesus,  his  death  being  the  exposition  of  the 
unity  of  divine  love  and  law. 

(c)  Man  can  be  forgiven ;  that  is,  can  reach  more 
perfectly  moral  personal  development  and  can  triumph 
over  the  effects  of  sin  by  a  repentance  that  leads  to  a 
voluntary  personal  union  with  God,  and  the  consequent 
all-sufficient  reinforcement  of  his  spiritual  life  by  God. 

{d)  The  act  of  faith  which  makes  possible  such  a 
union  is  evoked  by  the  historical  Jesus.  To  have 
faith  in  him  is  to  have  faith  in  God. 

{e)  Theje  is  a  certain  and  blessed  individual  im- 


76     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

mortality  superior  to  the  earthly  life  for  those  who  are 
possessed  of  a  spiritual  life  like  God's  as  revealed  in 
Jesus ;  the  guaranty  of  which  is  the  historic  fact  of 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 

(/")  There  is  possible  and  certain  a  new  social  order 
in  which  men's  relations  to  each  other  shall  be  those 
of  brothers  because  they  shall  have  become  sons  of 
God,  and  are  thus  empowered  to  further  the  triumph 
of  the  spiritual  life  in  the  midst  of  the  temporal  order. 

Or,  more  systematically,  the  gospel  is  a  message 
of  the  redemptive  love  of  the  God  of  Law ;  of  God's 
presence  in  Jesus ;  of  a  spiritual  and  therefore  more 
individual  life  beyond  death  made  possible  by  the 
transformation  of  the  repentant  human  personality  by 
dynamic  personal  union  with  the  God  of  Love 
mediated  by  faith  in  Jesus;  and  of  a  regenerate 
society  that  shall  bring  blessing  to  the  individual 
because  of  the  socialization  of  the  regenerate  spiritual 
life  of  individuals,  —  all  revealed  as  realizable  and 
morally  just  by  the  supreme  teaching,  the  spiritual 
experiences,  the  sinless  life,  the  death  and  the  resur- 
rection of  the  historical  Jesus,  and  further  guaranteed 
by  the  spiritual  experience  of  his  followers  who  ac- 
cept the  message  as  true  and  make  it  controlling  in 
their  own  lives. 

The  two  foci  of  this  good  news,  the  historical  Jesus 


THE    CONTENT    OF    THE    GOSPEL  77 

and  the  experience  of  the  Spirit  by  Christians,  cannot 
be  shown  to  be  derived  from  any  precedent  expecta- 
tion among  the  Jews  of  the  New  Testament  times. 
In  fact,  they  contradict  messianic  expectations  as 
they  are  known  to  us  in  contemporary  literature. 
They  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  any  sane  religio- 
historical  method,  and  must  be  regarded  as  two  pri- 
mary and  original  contributions  of  Christianity  to 
religious  history. 

4.  And  further,  it  is  evident  to  any  student  of  the 
New  Testament  that  the  center  of  this  message  is  in 
life  rather  than  in  teaching.  But  not  in  physical  life. 
The  gospel  presupposes  and  validates  the  belief  in 
spiritual  life,  which  though  not  to  be  consciously 
separated  from  the  totality  of  our  present  mode 
of  existence  is  yet  the  true  life  of  man,  since  it  is 
that  which  separates  him  from  the  animal  and  makes 
him  in  the  image  of  God  who  is  Spirit.  Indeed,  one 
might  define  the  gospel  as  the  exposition  of  the  na- 
ture, the  moral  possibilities,  and  the  certain  triumph 
over  the  impersonal  elements  of  our  person,  of  the 
^  spiritual  life  as  it  is  finally  revealed  in  the  historical 
/  Jesus.  And  this  spiritual  life,  the  gospel  always 
insists,  reaches  its  moral  power  only  as  it  is  in  renew- 
ing union  with  the  Holy  Spirit  that  comes  to  the 
followers  of  the  Lord  who  is  the  Spirit. 


78  THE    GOSPEL   AISTD   THE   MODERN   MAN 

III 

I  am  convinced  that  any  faithful  exploration  of 
social  and  individual  experience  will  confirm  this 
formulation  of  the  heart  of  the  gospel.  It  is  because 
men  believed  in  these  fundamental  spiritual  verities,  as 
well  as  in  the  figures  and  ethnic  hopes  in  which  they 
were  expressed,  that  Christianity  cut  loose  from 
Judaism,  conquered  the  Roman  empire,  and  is  still 
operative  in  our  evolving  civilization.  The  gospel 
includes  moral  and  social  ideals  which  are  more  than 
visionary  because  they  have  been  incarnated  in  an 
actual  life.  It  is  more  than  a  philosophical  generali- 
zation, because  it  is  grounded  on  the  experience  of  the 
cosmic  spiritual  life  by  definitely  historical  persons. 
It  has  become  dynamic  through  the  ages  because  it 
has  reached  the  motive  forces  of  character  as  some- 
thing based  upon  facts  made  intelligible  to  different 
ages  through  the  medium  of  the  best  thinking  of  those 
ages. 

Doctrine-making  is  a  social  process  which  tran- 
scends the  individual's  expression  of  his  own  spiritual 
life.  Dogmas  are  the  authoritative  formulations  by 
which  the  social  mind  of  any  age  makes  intelligible 
to  itself  its  religious  experience.  A  theological 
system  to  be  effective  must  correlate  all  germane 


THE    CONTENT    OF    THE    GOSPEL  79 

religious  facts  with  the  ultimate  and  controlling 
conceptions  of  its  day. 

It  has  been  thus  that  the  gospel  has  been  brought 
into  dynamic  relations  with  each  successive  and  es- 
sentially new  social  mind  and  thus  maintained  the 
continuity  of  the  spiritual  content  of  human  experi- 
ence through  historical  changes.  The  third  century 
brought  it  into  regenerating  unity  with  its  experience 
through  its  ''essence"  philosophy,  and  its  belief 
in  an  eternally  begotten  Logos  consubstantial  with 
God  the  Father.  The  Middle  Ages  used  it  to  work 
out  the  social  and  political  reconstruction  involved 
in  the  magnificent  though  impracticable  program  of 
a  Holy  Roman  Empire.  The  Reformers  brought  it 
home  to  human  life  through  the  agency  of  a  new 
estimate  of  the  worth  of  the  individual  bom  of  an 
enlarging  world-consciousness.  The  modern  man 
can  make  it  a  source  of  individual  and  social  regenera- 
tion by  interpreting  it  to  himself  and  to  his  world 
through  those  conceptions  that  are  the  best  channels 
to  the  center  of  his  intellectual  and  spiritual  being. 

I.  While  a  completely  systematized  theology  is  not 
necessary  to  the  success  of  an  attempt  to  bring  the 
gospel  to  the  modern  man,  in  the  very  nature  of  the 
case,  we  must,  if  possible,  find  some  coordinating 
principle  that  on  the  one  hand  shall  bring  the  ele- 


8o     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

ments  of  the  gospel  into  harmony  with  the  controlling 
world-view.  If  such  a  unifying  thought  is  to  be  true 
to  the  gospel,  it  must  be  an  equivalent  of  the  messianic 
formula.  Indeed,  the  method  of  equivalency  must 
control  the  entire  presentation  of  the  gospel  if  it  is 
to  be  true  to  its  original  content.  For,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  the  gospel  was  not  merely  a  group  of 
truths  and  facts;  it  was  also  the  valuation  of  those 
truths  and  facts  in  terms  of  messianism  in  the  interest 
of  the  spiritual  man.  That  is  to  say,  it  was  the  his- 
torical form  given  to  ultimate  spiritual  realities,  which 
form  itself,  in  so  far  as  it,  too,  was  the  expression  of  the 
spiritual  life,  has  permanent  value.  For  we  cannot 
altogether  separate  except  in  thought  the  elements  of 
a  religion  of  the  Spirit.  If  only  it  can  assimilate  the 
proper  elements  from  its  intellectual  and  social  en- 
vironment it  is  enriched  and  strengthened.  And  this 
has  been  true  of  the  Christian  life.  But  it  has  always 
expressed  itself  in  thought  forms  that  enabled  it  to 
function  in  particular  historical  situations,  and  these 
thought  forms  themselves  are  useful  only  as  they 
enable  the  spiritual  life  inspired  by  the  gospel  to  ex- 
press itself  normally.  The  endeavor  to  find  equiva- 
lents for  the  successive  organs  of  spiritual  self- 
expression  is  not  an  uncritical  perpetuation  of  the 
identical  New  Testament  conceptions  or  those  of  later 


THE   CONTENT    OF    THE    GOSPEL  8l 

dogmas.  Terms  used  to  express  a  thoroughly  social- 
ized concept  grow  symbolic  rather  than  strictly 
definitive.  In  religious  history  they  are  the  points  of 
contact  at  which  the  spiritual  life  of  one  age  realizes 
its  unity  with  and  draws  inspiration  from  the  spiritual 
life  of  the  past;  the  means  by  which  experience  is 
aided  by  experience  to  enriched  development. 

Let  us  then  briefly  attempt  the  discovery  of  the 
modern  equivalents  of  messianism;  that  is  to  say,  of 
the  concepts  in  which  the  content  of  the  gospel  as 
above  formulated  can  be  made  to  minister  to  the 
religious  life  of  the  modern  man. 

The  general  scheme  of  messianism  involves  in  itself 
certain  component  concepts  which,  despite  the  unac- 
customedness  of  their  formal  expression,  are  obviously 
contained  in  our  modern  world-view.  The  three 
most  important  of  these  concepts  are  the  sovereignty 
of  God,  eschatology,  and  salvation.  The  equivalents 
of  these  three  elements  are  fundamental  for  any  at- 
tempt to  set  forth  the  gospel  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  modern  man. 

I.  The  first  equivalent  is  that  for  the  belief  in  the 
sovereignty  of  God. 

Sovereignty  was  an  analogy,  but  it  was  the  most 
inclusive  analogy  under  which  the  ancient  world 
which  shaped  our  ecumenical  orthodoxy  undertook 


S2  THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

to  set  forth  its  conception  of  God.  The  modem  man 
with  his  democracy  and  his  science  can  hardly  be 
expected  to  get  full  value  from  either  the  concept 
or  the  terms  of  such  a  world-view.  God  is  more  than 
a  sovereign.  He  is  God.  Yet  sovereignty  expresses 
a  reality  which  cannot  be  overlooked  —  God  as  the 
ultimate  and  controlling  reality  in  human  life  both  in- 
dividual and  social.  We  do  not  look  to  Him  to  find 
any  likeness  to  the  oriental  monarch,  but  regarding 
Him  as  immanent  Life,  beneficently  working  through, 
determining  and  expressing  Himself  in  the  age- 
long process  which  involves  both  matter  and  history, 
we  conceive  of  Him,  not  as  Process,  but  as  the  source 
and  guide  of  all  progress.  Humanity  must  submit 
to  and  conform  to  God,  conceived  of  not  as  politically 
but  as  cosmically  personal.  Here  the  conception  of 
the  God  of  law  persists,  with  the  difference  that  law 
is  no  longer  regarded  as  the  statutory  enactments  of  a 
sovereign  but  as  the  expression  of  God's  rational  and 
beneficent  will  as  seen  in  the  very  nature  of  things  and 
most  of  all  in  the  spiritual  order  from  which  we  derive 
authority  and  assistance  for  our  own  spiritual  life. 

2.  The  second  equivalent  is  that  for  eschatology. 

I  am  aware  that  at  this  point  I  am  very  likely  to 
part  company  with  some  of  those  who  may  have  agreed 
with  the  positions  thus  far  taken.     Eschatology,  with 


THE    CONTENT    OF    THE    GOSPEL  83 

its  salvation  by  catastrophe  and  its  strange  imagery, 
seems  to  many  quite  beyond  the  range  of  possibility 
of  acceptance  by  the  modern  man.  But  unless  I 
mistake  completely,  persons  holding  such  an  opinion 
fail  to  approach  the  subject  with  full  historical 
sympathies  and  so  fail  to  analyze  the  actual  content  of 
the  concept.  Eschatology,  it  is  true,  as  represented 
in  the  Jewish  apocalypses  is  a  bizarre  mixture  of 
symbols,  but  he  is  a  superficial  student  of  the  ancient 
world  who  can  see  in  these  apocalypses  nothing  that 
reaches  into  the  depths  of  religious  faith.  When  one 
ceases  to  look  at  it  in  its  broad  lines,  eschatology  at 
once  appears  to  have  been  something  more  than  an 
irridescent  dream. 

In  the  first  place  it  was  a  pictorial  presentment  in 
terms  of  catastrophe  of  what  we  should  call  the 
teleology  of  social  evolution.  For  it  was  primarily 
a  politico-social  hope.  It  looked  not  to  a  theological 
heaven,  but  to  a  social  order,  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Its  very  heart  was  confidence  in  that  divine  deliverance 
which  God  was  to  give  His  people  by  establishing 
through  the  national  Saviour  an  actual,  triumphant, 
and  ideal  society.  Catastrophe  was  only  incidental 
to  such  a  hope.  It  was  simply  the  way  in  which  the 
ancient  world  conceived  of  God's  accomplishing  his 
redemptive  purpose  in  human  history. 


84  THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

Eschatology,  in  the  second  place,  included  the 
hope  of  personal  immortality  and  resurrection. 
Immortality  was  involved  in  the  new  social  order 
which  God  was  to  establish,  since  all  the  subjects  of 
the  kingdom  were  to  share  in  its  blessings.  The 
resurrection  was  not  that  of  the  physical  body  from 
the  grave,  but,  if  we  correctly  interpret  Josephus,  was 
a  formula  for  expressing  the  Pharisees'  belief  in  the 
efficient  and  superior  form  of  individual  existence 
to  be  enjoyed  by  the  righteous. 

A  third  belief  which  eschatological  pictures  ex- 
pressed was  that  of  the  inevitableness  of  the  postponed 
outcome  of  forces  resident  in  national  and  individual 
character.  In  its  picture  of  the  Judgment  Day  it  set 
forth  a  profound  conviction  common  to  all  humanity ; 
that  which  the  Buddhist  expresses  in  his  doctrine  of 
Karma  and  which  the  apostle  epitomized  in  his 
axiom  "what  a  man  sows  that  he  shall  also  reap"; 
that  which  the  modern  idealist  finds  in  the  triumph 
of  an  absolute  spiritual  order :  —  the  conviction  that 
moral  actions  are  moral  forces  producing  results. 
In  a  universe  like  ours,  goodness  ultimately  cannot 
bring  forth  pain;  badness  ultimately  cannot  bring 
forth  happiness.  To  believe  otherwise  would  be  to 
distrust  the  reason  and  goodness  of  the  immanent 
God  himself. 


THE  CONTENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL        85 

These  three  conceptions,  the  future  divinely  es- 
tablished social  order,  personal  immortality  involv- 
ing a  further  advance  of  the  regenerate  individual 
through  the  resurrection,  and  the  inevitableness  of 
pain  or  blessing  as  the  outcome  of  character  because 
of  God's  working  in  the  moral-personal  realm  — 
these  were  the  heart  of  early  Christian  eschatology. 
Each  is  in  a  way  the  inheritance  taken  over  from 
Judaism,  but  none  of  them  is  merely  formal  or  picto- 
rial. Each  possesses  an  ethical  content  as  truly  as  a 
religious.  Feasts  with  Abraham,  heavenly  taber- 
nacles, a  New  Jerusalem  let  down  from  heaven,  cos- 
mic catastrophes,  the  judgment  throne  and  the  lake 
of  fire,  are  the  picture  forms  in  which  the  regenerate 
society,  the  regenerate  individual,  and  the  finality  of 
the  moral  order  are  set  forth.  Such  fundamental  be- 
liefs as  these  cannot  safely  be  lost  from  any  religion. 
Paradoxical  as  it  may  seem,  eschatology  in  these 
equivalents  brings  the  gospel  into  closest  touch  with  the 
thought  of  the  modern  world.  Any  man  who,  in  the 
spirit  of  the  New  Testament,  would  attempt  scientifi- 
cally to  minister  to  our  day  must  embody  it  in  his 
message.  He  cannot  omit  the  effects  of  God's  pres- 
ence and  activity  in  social  evolution,  the  future  of  the 
individual,  the  triumph  of  righteousness  and  the 
spiritual  order. 


86     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

3.  Thus,  thirdly,  messianism,  because  it  is  escha- 
tological  is  but  a  part  of  the  supreme  conception 
of  divine  salvation  which  the  gospel  revealed.  In 
that  conception  there  are  involved  two  elements :  that 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  that  of  the  triumph  of  the 
individual  over  sin  and  death.  The  first  demands 
that  our  theology  be  social ;  the  second  that  it  make 
a  free,  social,  spiritual  individuality  the  supreme  result 
of  the  redemptive  process. 

IV 

Just  what  sort  of  theology  will  result  from  such 
equivalents  it  is  not  our  purpose  to  consider  in  detail, 
nor  is  it  so  important  as  the  question  as  to  what  sort 
of  contribution  the  gospel  can  make  to  the  totality  of 
our  spiritual  life.  Philosophical  and  theological 
precision  is  here  secondary  to  vital  efficiency.  Yet 
such  efficiency  must  to  no  inconsiderable  degree 
rest  upon  the  reasonableness  of  the  evangelic  message. 
Nor  need  we  here  lose  heart.  Indispensable  as  is 
the  final  test  of  its  individual  and  social  efficiency, 
our  faith  is  not  based  on  cunningly  devised  fables  or 
laboriously  devised  definitions.  Suffice  it  to  say  that 
the  constituent  truths  of  the  gospel  can  fairly  be 
correlated  with  the  facts  given  by  various  sciences 
into   working   hypotheses   that   can    be   tested   by 


THE    CONTENT   OF    THE    GOSPEL  87 

human  experience,  and  so  systematized  into  reason- 
able acceptability  by  some  controlling  concept  of  the 
modern  social  mind.  Metaphysical  explanations 
and  justifications  we  can  leave  to  that  type  of  theology 
that  prefers  to  begin  with  theories  of  knowledge  and 
the  formative  assumptions  of  a  philosophy  of  religion. 
Our  own  field  is  that  of  the  creatively  active  per- 
sonality finding,  under  the  guidance  of  the  gospel, 
completest  expression  and  realization  in  personal 
relations  with  other  personalities  and  with  the  God 
of  the  ever  progressing  universe. 

The  true  content  of  the  gospel  should  not  be  ob- 
scured by  any  analysis  of  its  elements.  Within  our 
humanity  it  sees  two  warring  forces,  the  one  lusting 
back  to  the  fleshpots  of  pleasure  and  the  comforts  of 
that  impersonal  life  from  which  humanity  has  so 
valiantly  struggled  to  be  free ;  the  other  ever  striving 
for  self-expression  in  that  increasingly  supranatural 
spiritual  life  in  which,  be  it  never  so  dimly,  it  has 
ever  seen  its  goal.  Freedom  and  salvation  can  come 
only  as  this  higher  life  of  the  spirit  triumphs.  And 
the  way  to  this  triumph  the  gospel  shows  in  its  insist- 
ence that  it  is  possible  for  those  who  are  in  dynamic 
union  with  God,  and  in  its  historical  presentation 
of  Jesus  as  its  perfectly  individualized  expression. 
In  him  was  life  and  the  life  is  the  light  of  men.     To 


8S  THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

be  saved  is  to  live  that  life;  to  live  it  is  to  be  saved. 
That  is  the  heart  of  the  gospel.  All  else  is  naturalism 
and  the  distractive  allurement  of  Illumination. 

Because  Christianity  thus  opens  the  way  to  the  full 
realization  of  the  spiritual  life,  it  is  redemptive. 
To  make  the  gospel  anything  else  than  a  message 
of  deliverance,  both  negative  and  positive,  would  be 
to  give  it  a  new  character.  Any  religion  to  be  of 
significance  must  do  something  for  its  followers.  The 
moment  it  is  reduced  to  a  code  of  divinely  authorized 
worldly  wisdom  or  to  a  philosophy  with  merely  in- 
tellectual appeal,  it  becomes  the  property  only  of  the 
intellectual  aristocrat,  and  even  with  him  it  is  always 
exposed  to  the  epigram  or  the  syllogism  of  some  rival. 
We,  as  truly  as  the  citizens  of  the  ancient  world,  have 
our  Satan,  our  sin,  our  death.  The  fact  that  we  do 
not  picture  them  to  ourselves  in  quite  the  same  way 
as  did  the  ancient  world  by  no  means  destroys  the 
evils  for  which  these  awful  names  stand.  Those 
relentless  natural  forces  that  would  enslave  us  and 
ever  bring  us  and  all  whom  we  love  so  much  of  sorrow 
—  we  want  to  be  delivered  from  them.  The  sin 
which  so  easily  besets  us  and  attacks  us  so  unex- 
pectedly and  so  viciously  —  we  want  to  be  delivered 
from  that.  Death,  which  seems  sometimes  the 
very  quintessence  of  waste  and  irrationality  as  well 


THE    CONTENT   OF   THE    GOSPEL  89 

as  terror  —  we  want  to  be  delivered  from  that. 
Nor  would  we  be  saved  alone  and  individually.  The 
sense  of  the  solidarity  of  human  society  calls  for  the 
regeneration  also  of  the  social  forces  that  are  always 
making  To-morrow.  And  here  too  the  gospel  meets 
our  needs.  It  thrills  with  the  hope  of  the  regenera- 
tion of  the  social  order.  Its  God  would  bring  men 
not  only  to  a  heaven  beyond  death  but  to  the  New 
Jerusalem  which  is  to  be  set  up  upon  earth,  a  trium- 
phant order  of  the  spirit  in  which  His  will  shall  be 
done  as  it  is  in  heaven. 

To  establish  the  reasonableness  of  this  message  of 
a  salvation  that  consists  in  the  social  and  individual 
realization  of  the  spiritual  life  as  revealed  in  Jesus, 
by  showing  it  to  be  consistent  with  the  dominant  pre- 
suppositions of  to-day's  thought  and  action,  is  to 
evoke  a  response  and  allegiance  on  the  part  of  the 
modem  man  as  truly  as  from  those  who  do  not  share 
in  his  view  of  the  universe.  But  to  make  such  mes- 
sage reasonable  is  not  an  end  in  itself.  The  gospel  does 
not  need  above  all  to  be  proved  to  be  true.  I  doubt 
if  many  men  were  ever  argued  from  sin  over  to  God  by 
apologetics.  They  need  to  be  convinced  rather  that 
the  act  of  faith  evoked  by  the  presentation  of  Jesus, 
even  though  it  be  incipient  and,  as  it  were,  tentative, 
is  justifiable  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  spiritual 


90     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

immanence  of  God,  a  divinely  directed  evolution, 
historical  criticism,  and  the  ultimate  values  of  life. 
This  is  the  method  of  the  true  apologetic:  not  the 
discussion  of  the  mutual  relation  of  definitions  and 
speculations,  nor  yet  the  exposition  of  the  metaphysi- 
cal truth  of  various  doctrines  outside  the  limits  of 
experience;  but  the  justification  of  the  act  of  faith 
in  the  God  revealed  in  and  by  Jesus  as  rationally 
worthy  of  a  man  wholeheartedly  at  one  with  the  age 
in  which  he  lives. 

Herein  lies  our  next  task.  Having  discovered 
historically  the  content  of  the  gospel  as  a  message 
of  divine  redemption  we  shall  proceed  first  to  show 
that  it  can  be  accepted  by  the  modem  man  as  reason- 
able because  of  its  accord  with  his  own  constructive 
thinking,  and  then  shall  attempt  to  show  positively 
that  the  gospel  is  a  divine  dynamic  making  towards 
the  emancipation  and  the  perfection  of  personality 
here  and  hereafter,  and  towards  that  better  social 
order  toward  which  our  modem  in  its  constructive 
moods  is  looking. 


PART  II 

THE   REASONABLENESS   OF   THE   GOSPEL 

CHAPTER   IV 

JESUS    THE    CHRIST 

The  gospel  is  a  message  of  individual  and  social 
salvation  through  the  spiritual  inworking  of  a  God 
who  is  at  once  love  and  law,  revealed  in  and  guaran- 
teed by  the  experience  of  the  historical  Jesus.  That  is 
the  quintessence  of  Christian  truth.  But  is  this 
guarantee  itself  of  value  ?  Can  we  still  believe  in  a 
gospel  that  thus  involves  an  historical  person  like 
the  Jesus  the  apostles  preached? 

It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  history  knows  no  other 
Jesus  with  evangelic  power,  although  such  a  state- 
ment would  be  undeniable.  A  prophet  of  Nazareth, 
a  social  reformer,  an  ethical  teacher,  a  beloved 
martyr,  —  neither  is  the  Jesus  who  has  conquered 
the  world.  The  only  Jesus  who  can  reveal  and  guar- 
antee the  evangelic  method  of  deliverance  from  de- 
spair, sin,  and  death  is  the  Jesus  who  in  the  cold  light 
of  criticism  can  be  known  himself  to  have  conquered 

91 


92     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

sin  and  death ;  who,  as  the  unique  and  perfect  ex- 
pression of  the  God-life,  determines  a  man's  rela- 
tion to  God. 

True,  the  evangelic  message  of  a  God  of  love  who 
delivers  man  by  reinvigorating  him  with  new  spiritual 
power  might  still  help  us  even  if  the  Jesus  of  the  New 
Testament  should  disappear  in  the  crucible  of  his- 
torical criticism.  The  religious  conception  of  the 
universe  built  up  by  Christian  experience  would  be 
still  a  message  of  deliverance.  Conceivably — but  to 
my  mind  tragically  —  Christianity  might  supplant 
Jesus.  As  shaped  by  the  century-long  experience  of 
the  Christian  community,  it  contains  much  that  is 
self-validating.  Social  evolution  enlightened  by  the 
Christian  church  would  teach  us  it  is  better  to  live 
in  accordance  with  the  supposition  that  a  God  of 
Law  is  a  God  of  Love,  that  individual  development 
is  not  to  be  stopped  short  by  death,  that  the  spiritual 
order  is  superior  to  the  natural,  and  that  a  better 
community  is  yet  to  be  formed.  But,  apologetically 
strong  as  such  a  daring,  I  had  almost  said  reck- 
less, position  may  be,  it  is  weak  indeed  when 
compared  with  the  same  teachings  backed  by  an 
assurance  of  the  trustworthiness  of  the  evangelic  pic- 
ture of  a  genuinely  historical  Jesus,  the  concrete 
exposition  of  the  supremacy  of  the  spiritual  life. 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  93 

It  is  inevitable  that  the  gospel  should  appear  at 
the  bar  of  criticism.  However  much  we  may  argue 
that  apart  from  any  historical  basis  the  essential 
truths  of  the  New  Testament  are  in  themselves  ca- 
pable of  evoking  faith,  few  of  us  have  so  accustomed 
ourselves  to  the  high  altitudes  of  academic  thought  as 
to  find  it  possible  to  gain  spiritual  uplift  in  an  alleged 
historic  fact  we  are  convinced  has  become  merely 
"functional."  An  empty  revolver  functions  ad- 
mirably as  long  as  the  highwayman  thinks  it  loaded, 
but  what  if  he  discovers  his  mistake  ?  History  that 
has  lost  its  historicity  becomes,  except  perhaps  among 
philosophers,  of  equally  dubious  value.  Your  aver- 
age modem  man  has  not  yet  lost  his  Wirklichkeitsinn, 
to  wit,  his  common  sense. 


In  so  far  as  the  gospel  involves  the  historical  Jesus, 
in  so  far  must  it  be  amenable  to  the  laws  governing 
historical  investigation. 

I .  Throughout  its  history  the  church  has  been  com- 
pelled to  defend  its  position  against  those  who  have 
mishandled  the  historical  substratum  of  its  teaching. 
It  was  the  practice  of  many  of  the  early  sects  to  pro- 
duce counterfeit  gospels  for  the  purpose  of  justify- 
ing some  peculiar  view.     A  considerable  number  of 


94     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

these  have  come  down  to  us  either  in  whole  or  in  part, 
but  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews  they  are  utterly  unhistorical.  In  them 
all  there  are  barely  half  a  dozen  incidents  or  sayings 
that  can  be  accepted  as  in  any  sense  genuine.  In  some 
cases  these  gospels  contain  elaborate  descriptions  of 
events  preceding  the  birth  of  Christ,  of  his  boyhood, 
of  his  crucifixion  and  resurrection,  and  of  his  descent  to 
the  abode  of  the  departed  spirits.  The  motive  in 
such  construction  was  either  to  give  authority  and 
weight  to  certain  peculiar  views  or  to  supply  the 
want  of  information  about  some  period  of  Jesus* 
life.  Both  purposes  are  equally  open  to  moral  ob- 
jections from  our  own  point  of  view. 

While  it  is  true  that  such  writings  as  these  testify 
to  the  church's  belief  that  Christianity  is  grounded  on 
history,  they  also  testify  to  the  indifference  of  the 
early  church  to  elemental  historical  accuracy.  And 
this,  too,  in  itself  raises  difficulties.  We  have  passed 
from  the  age  in  which  a  doctrine  can  be  substantiated 
by  the  manufacture  of  historical  evidence.  Indeed, 
the  further  we  proceed  in  the  comparative  study  of 
religion  the  more  are  we  likely  to  be  convinced  that  a 
religion's  claim  to  an  historical  founder  deserves 
particularly  careful  investigation.  This  impression 
has  been  deepened  by  the  newer  type  of  historical 


JESUS   THE   CHRIST  95 

criticism.  In  his  zeal  for  discovering  the  actual 
value  of  historical  evidence  the  critic  has  at  times 
apparently  assumed  that  everything  was  a  lie  until 
it  was  proved  to  be  true.  We  all  recall  how  in  the 
first  flush  of  rewriting  Roman  history  the  royal 
period  was  thrown  into  the  waste  basket.  The  fault, 
however,  was  not  due  to  the  method,  but  to  the  pre- 
conceptions with  which  critical  pioneers  undertook 
their  work. 

This  has  been  equally  true  in  the  case  of  the 
gospel  records.  In  too  many  cases  critics  have  been 
philologians  whose  idea  of  criticism  has  been  that  of 
literary  analysis,  or  dogmatic  liberals  .who  loved  bril- 
liant conjectures  better  than  sober  corroborations. 
It  is  true  that  this  phase  of  criticism  is  passing  as  the 
man  with  historical  feeling  has  replaced  ingenious 
word-surgeons,  and  men  of  method  those  of  a  priori 
temperament  who  made  their  theories  a  procrustean 
bed  for  historical  documents.  At  the  same  time,  there 
are  still  hobby  riders  in  the  field  of  criticism.  In  some 
cases  this  hobby  consists  in  a  rearrangement  of 
material  and  an  emendation  of  text  on  highly  sub- 
jective grounds.  In  other  cases  it  takes  the  form  of 
an  enthusiastic  skepticism  begotten  of  a  monopoly  of 
some  philosophical  presupposition.  In  still  other 
cases  negative  criticism  is  due  to  an  excessive  ingenu- 


96     THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

ity  which  reconstructs  the  gospel  history  along  lines 
which  are  all  but  unintelligible  to  any  one  except  the 
critic  himself.  And  in  criticism  as  in  everything  else 
it  is  not  well  to  be  too  clever. 

2.  But  after  all  allowance  is  made  for  scholarship 
of  this  sort  the  historical  method  brings  us  face  to 
face  with  some  very  serious  questions.  When,  for 
example,  were  our  present  gospels  written,  and  by 
whom?  The  average  man  has  ready  only  an  indis- 
tinct answer.  The  probability  is  that  he  regards 
them  as  having  been  written  as  they  stand  to-day  by 
the  men  whose  names  have  been  attached  to  them  by 
copyists.  The  historical  student,  however,  sees  in 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  the  reworking  of 
material  very  much  older  than  the  gospels  in  their 
present  forms.  Matthew,  for  instance,  embodies 
matter  which  came  from  the  apostle  Matthew  but  is 
also  in  large  measure  derived  from  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  reenforced  by  material  drawn  from  collec- 
tions of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  other  than  those  to  be 
found  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  the  whole  being  worked 
together  possibly  by  Matthew  himself,  but  certainly 
reedited  by  unknown  writers.  Much  the  same  is 
true  in  the  case  of  Luke.  Even  in  the  case  of 
Mark  evidences  of  redaction  are  not  wanting.  The 
subjective  elements  and   late   date  of   the  Fourth 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  97 

Gospel  are    admitted  by  conservative   and  radical 
alike. 

The  first  stage  of  this  criticism  was  thoroughly- 
destructive.  The  time  of  writing  of  the  three  Synop- 
tic Gospels  was  placed  very  late,  while  that  of  the 
Gospel  of  John  was  placed  somewhere  in  the  second 
quarter  of  the  second  century  and  even  later. 
Within  the  past  few  years,  however,  critics  are  divid- 
ing themselves  into  two  main  groups.  By  far  the 
larger  of  these,  represented  by  genuinely  historical  in- 
vestigators, has  pushed  the  time  of  writing  back  until 
the  oldest  strata  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  seem  to  be- 
long to  the  period  prior  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem (65-67  A.D.)  and  the  Gospel  of  John  to  the  end 
of  the  first  century.  The  other  and  more  radical 
group  of  critics  is  numerically  small  but  has  been 
given  undue  importance  by  the  fact  that  its  members 
have  been  given  opportunity  to  express  themselves 
in  the  pages  of  the  Encyclopedia  Biblica.  For  these 
latter  writers  the  gospels  possess  small  historical 
value  and  represent  merely  the  interpretation  placed 
upon  Jesus  by  the  early  Christians.  According  to 
criticism  of  the  first  type  the  figure  of  Jesus  emerges 
with  ever  increasing  distinctness.  According  to 
that  of  the  second  school  Jesus  is  continuously 
retreating  into  the  shadows  of  the  past,  until  he 


98  THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

becomes  barely  the  name  of  a  man  about  whom  we 
know  with  certainty  all  but  nothing. 

The  modern  man  will  not  abandon,  he  cannot  aban- 
don, the  historical  method  because  of  this  difference  in 
the  results  of  its  application,  but  between  the  pre- 
suppositions of  these  two  sets  of  critics  he  can  hardly 
fail  to  choose  the  more  conservative.  And  for  the 
very  good  reason  that  the  negative  positions  reached 
by  the  second  group  imply  something  which  from 
the  point  of  view  of  method  is  close  to  critical  suicide. 
The  results  of  the  less  biased  criticism  on  the  other 
hand  flow  from  true  historical  science.  The  fact  that 
they  have  placed  the  historical  foundation  of  the 
gospel,  in  so  far  at  least  as  concerns  the  faith  of  the 
first  disciples,  upon  unquestionable  bases,  is  damag- 
ing evidence  only  to  the  man  who  believes  that  no 
method  is  scientific  which  proves  something.  It  could 
not  be  otherwise  in  view  of  the  generally  accepted 
views  regarding  the  structure  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels, 
and  the  chief  epistles  of  Paul.  Critical  analysis 
has  disclosed  material  which  is  older  than  the  gospels 
themselves  in  their  present  form,  which  can  be  best 
described  as  coming  from  those  whom  Luke  calls 
"eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word,"  while  the 
epistles  of  Paul  carry  us  back  to  the  days  before  this 
material  had  been  reduced  to  written  form. 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  99 

3.  Yet  at  this  point  we  reach  a  new  difficulty. 
That  inveterate  skepticism  which  assails  every  positive 
evangelic  statement  having  been  defeated  in  the  re- 
gion of  the  dates  of  the  gospels  now  assails  this  origi- 
nal material  with  the  weapons  of  psychology  and  a 
theory  of  knowledge.  In  its  extreme  form  it  can  see 
in  Paul  only  an  obscure  man  who  never  did  much  of 
anything  except  make  a  trip  to  Rome,  and  in  his 
letters  only  lucubrations  of  an  unknown  writer  of  the 
second  century  concerning  issues  a  century  outgrown. 
All  one  can  say  of  these  conclusions  of  van  Manen 
and  his  little  school  is  that  if  the  negative  criticism 
which  destroys  the  historical  existence  of  Jesus  be 
critical  suicide  this  treatment  of  the  Pauline  litera- 
ture is  critical  madness. 

In  its  less  extreme  form  the  new  criticism  identifies 
historical  records  with  experience  and  holds  that  all 
we  have  in  such  records  is  the  judgment  of  value  put 
by  the  early  church  upon  Jesus.  According  to  this 
view  it  is  impossible  actually  to  get  at  the  historical 
Jesus.  We  can  only  recover  the  recollections,  the 
impressions,  the  enthusiasm,  and  the  faith  of  his 
followers.  And  these  results,  it  is  claimed,  yield  very 
obscure  historical  conclusions  as  to  Jesus  himself. 

Particularly  in  the  case  of  the  resurrection  is  this 
objection  urged.    This  school  of  critics  does  not  doubt 


lOO         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

that  the  early  disciples  believed  that  Jesus  had  ap- 
peared to  them,  but  it  insists  that  this  belief  was  due 
to  pure  subjectivism.  The  stories  of  the  resurrec- 
tion are  the  visualizing,  so  to  speak,  of  the  faith  of  the 
disciples  born  of  intimate  companionship  with  Jesus, 
and  all  that  the  gospel  of  the  risen  Christ  really 
amounts  to  is  that  the  early  Christians  were  so 
convinced  of  the  messiahship  of  Jesus  that  they  could 
not  believe  that  God  had  allowed  him  to  perish. 
Under  this  conviction  they  thought  they  saw  him.  We 
have  in  the  gospel,  therefore,  according  to  this  school, 
correct  statements  as  to  what  the  apostles  thought 
they  saw,  but  no  evidence  that  there  was  anything 
for  them  to  see. 

Now  this  reduction  of  history  to  experience  must  be 
taken  seriously.  It  has  enough  truth  to  make  it 
exceedingly  difficult  to  oppose.  If  one  urges  that  it 
practically  wipes  the  actual  Jesus  off  the  slate  of 
history,  one  is  likely  to  be  met  by  the  indignant 
asseveration  that  nothing  of  the  sort  is  true ;  that  by 
faith  we  are  sure  there  was  such  a  Jesus,  but  that, 
as  we  cannot  know  him  apart  from  the  faith  of  the 
disciples,  we  cannot  safely  accept  the  account  of  those 
episodes  in  his  life  in  which  he  differs  from  ordinary 
men. 

If  on  the  other  hand  we  attempt  to  argue  that  the 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  lOI 

situation  in  his  case  is  no  different  from  that  of  any 
other  historical  person,  and  that  we  have  as  much 
material  with  which  to  paint  a  general  portrait  of 
Jesus  as  of  Plato,  or  Socrates,  or  even  of  Marcus 
Aurelius,  we  are  told,  as  it  were,  with  a  shrug  of  the 
philosophical  shoulders,  that  no  one  of  those  three 
men  was  said  to  have  been  raised  from  the  dead.  If 
we  reply  that  it  seems  extraordinary  that  so  great  a 
movement  should  have  sprung  from  a  man  with  no 
climactic  experience,  and  that  it  would  seem  as  if 
he  must  have  been  more  than  remarkable  not  only  to 
compel  the  allegiance  and  the  supreme  definitions  of 
so  keen  a  man  as  Paul  but  the  God-valuation  of 
the  modern  theologian  himself,  our  answer  is  the 
issuance  of  the  scholar's  anathema  —  unscientific. 

Now  we  must  admit  that  if  we  allow  Jesus  to  be  an 
ordinary  person  about  whom  we  know  nothing  with 
certainty,  we  cannot  believe  in  his  resurrection.  And  it 
is  also  necessary  to  admit  that  when  a  person  is  dead 
we  cannot  know  him  except  in  the  sense  that  we  know 
something  which  people  say  about  him.  But  that 
by  no  means  proves  that  there  was  not  in  the  character 
of  Jesus  something  which  warranted  his  contempo- 
raries' estimate  of  him,  and  further  warrants  our  ac- 
acceptance  of  that  estimate  as  the  basis  for  our  own 
conduct.     I  never  heard  Webster  speak,  and  I  am 


I02    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

ready  to  make  all  allov/ance  for  excessive  admiration 
as  well  as  for  excessive  dislike  in  the  stories  that  have 
come  down  to  us  concerning  him.  But  I  have  not  the 
slightest  doubt  that  Webster  was  an  orator  and 
statesman.  I  have  no  means  of  meeting  the  person 
Socrates,  and  I  am  perfectly  ready  to  admit  that  the 
Socrates  of  the  Platonic  dialogues  may  be  an  idealized 
portrait  of  the  Socrates  who  nagged  the  Athenians  into 
thinking  about  serious  matters  and  preferred  the 
market  place  to  companionship  with  Xantippe.  But 
I  have  no  doubt  that  Socrates  lived,  and  that  he  was  of 
sufficient  importance  in  philosophy  to  warrant  the 
portraits  which  Plato  and  Xenophon  drew  of  him. 
I  certainly  cannot  think  of  him  as  a  mere  lay  figure 
on  which  Plato  hung  his  own  thoughts. 

Similarly  in  the  case  of  Jesus.  It  is  desirable  to  dis- 
tinguish as  far  as  possible  between  the  real  Jesus  and 
those  estimates  and  descriptions  with  which  the  New 
Testament  writers  present  him.  But  why  should  we 
not  get  positive  results  from  the  criticism  as  well  as 
negative  ? 

The  pressing  task  for  the  systematic  theologian  is 
not  so  much  that  of  the  apologete  who  tries  to  find 
the  irreducible  minimum,  and  builds  therefrom,  as  it 
is  the  constructive  use  of  the  results  of  a  criticism 
which  has  brought  us  beyond  a  reasonable  perad- 


JESUS   THE    CHRIST  I03 

venture  face  to  face  with  the  beliefs  of  the  original 
Christians.  The  business  of  a  positive  theology  is 
not  to  discover  how  much  of  that  primitive  belief  can 
be  omitted,  but  how  much  of  it  is  really  correlatable 
with  other  things  we  know,  and  so  is  capable  of 
being  built  inductively  into  a  positive  message  for 
to-day's  life. 

The  question  as  to  a  real  Jesus  back  of  the  experi- 
ence and  faith  of  the  first  disciples  must  be  answered 
by  historians,  not  by  metaphysicians.  At  the  very 
outset  we  must  have  done  with  the  analogy  which 
finds  a  Jesus  an  sich  as  a  sort  of  equivalent  of  the 
Ding  an  sich  of  metaphysics.  It  would  be  difficult 
to  imagine  a  more  unjustifiable  source  of  confusion 
than  the  parallel  which  is  drawn  between  the  meta- 
physical difficulty  of  distinguishing  the  phenomenon 
from  the  noumenon  and  the  difficulty  of  distinguish- 
ing between  historical  testimony  and  the  person  or 
event  to  which  the  testimony  is  brought. 

II 

This  is  not  the  place  in  which  to  trace  in  detail  the 
working  of  the  historical  method  by  which  the  Jesus 
of  history  is  found.  It  must  suffice  to  set  forth  as 
succinctly  as  possible  its  results  as  an  answer  to  the 
question,  Is  there  more  than  one  Jesus  in  the  New 


I04         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

Testament  ?  And  to  avoid  any  suspicion  of  manipu- 
lation of  material  we  will  formulate  these  results  as 
they  come :  from  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  the  Pauline 
literature,  and  the  Johannine  literature. 

I.  The  Jesus  of  history  as  gained  by  a  study  of  the 
oldest  strata  of  the  synoptic  material  has  been  some- 
times described  as  a  prophet,  that  is  to  say,  a  teacher, 
more  or  less  under  the  limitations  of  the  messianic 
hope  of  his  day,  but  one  who  did  not  regard  himself 
as  the  Christ  and  whose  ''mighty  works"  the  histo- 
rian cannot  regard  seriously.  Such  a  view,  however, 
is  undeniably  the  minimum  result  of  the  projection 
of  a  dogmatic  position  into  historical  processes.  A 
properly  historical  examination  must  give  a  different 
formulation.  There  are  certain  deeds  ascribed  to 
Jesus  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  as  they  stand  to-day, 
which  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  oldest  strata  of  ma- 
terial ;  but,  even  in  the  case  of  the  Infancy  sections, 
their  absence  does  not  affect  the  general  estimate 
which  we  must  place  upon  him.  The  historical  Jesus 
can  still  be  described  by  the  study  of  the  reports  of 
his  words  and  deeds  and  his  own  self-consciousness 
as  contained  in  these  oldest  sources  which  have  been 
preserved  in  our  Synoptic  Gospels.  In  their  light  we 
must  say  that  he  was  a  person  of  moral  perfection, 
possessed  of  remarkable  powers  to  work  cures  through 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  IO5 

the  evoking  of  faith  on  the  part  of  others ;  a  teacher 
who  carried  to  what,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  are  their  final 
results,  the  religious  and  ethical  possibilities  and  con- 
ceptions of  humanity ;  a  religious  master  whose  very 
life  was  an  imperative  call  to  trust  in  the  fatherly  love 
of  God;  and,  although  he  never  explicitly  demanded 
such  faith  of  his  disciples,  one  who  regarded  himself 
as  such  an  altogether  unique  manifestation  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  as  to  be  able  to  deliver  men  from  sin 
and  misery  and  death.  Whether  or  not  he  concealed 
for  a  while  this  belief  in  his  messianic  vocation,  he 
found,  in  the  depths  of  his  consciousness,  impulses, 
ideals,  volitions,  and  powers  which  he  believed  sprang 
from  the  presence  of  the  Father  who  was  thus  em- 
powering him  for  his  supreme  mission. 

This  self-estimate  is  one  of  the  integral  parts  of  the 
original  gospel  message.  So  far  from  being  tenable 
appears  to  me  the  dictum  of  Schweitzer :  "  The  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  who  appeared  as  Messiah,  taught  the 
ethics  of  the  kingdom,  and  died  to  consecrate  his 
work  never  lived.  He  is  a  figure  sketched  by  ration- 
alism, called  to  life  by  literalism,  and  supplied  by 
modern  theology  with  the  clothing  of  historical 
science." 

2.  The  Pauline  conception  of  Jesus  is  that  of  a 
heavenly  Christ  who  became  incarnate  because  of 


Io6    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

the  love  of  God,  who  died  as  a  sacrifice  and  was  raised 
from  the  dead,  who  already  exercises  his  control 
over  his  community,  who  sends  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the 
followers,  and  who  will  return  from  heaven  to  estab- 
lish his  kingdom. 

It  cannot  be  questioned  that  this  Pauline  concep- 
tion of  Jesus  differs  somewhat  from  Jesus'  own  esti- 
mate of  himself  as  recorded  in  our  gospels,  but  it  is 
rather  in  the  manner  of  a  developed  interpretation 
than  of  a  radically  different  estimate.  It  starts 
with  the  messianic  valuation,  and  presupposes  a 
knowledge  of  the  historical  Jesus.  The  Pauline  let- 
ters w^ere  without  exception  written  to  persons  who 
already  had  in  their  possession  the  elements,  at  least, 
of  our  Synoptic  Gospels.  His  effort  was  not  so  much, 
therefore,  to  set  forth  the  facts  of  Jesus'  life  as  to  show 
how  an  already  existing  faith  in  Jesus  could  shape 
itself  to  the  exegencies  of  actual  situations.  Wher- 
ever he  finds  it  necessary  to  refer  to  matters  which  lie 
within  the  range  of  the  synoptic  material,  it  is  only  a 
hypersensitive  criticism  which  can  discover  radical 
\  discrepancies.  Paul's  God  is  the  same  Heavenly 
\  Father  whom  Jesus  revealed.  To  Him  as  reconciled 
^  Jesus  leads  men,  and  in  the  great  consummation 
He  will  be  all  in  all.  Paul's  elaboration  of  the  signifi- 
cance of  Jesus,  though  enriched  by  his  own  experi- 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  I07 

ence  and  culture,  is  steadily  along  the  line  of  Jesus' 
own  estimate  of  himself  as  the  revelation  of  God's 
power  of  spiritual  salvation  in  terms  of  messiah- 
ship. 

The  world  of  scholarship  at  the  present  time  is 
deeply  concerned  in  the  comparison  of  the  Jesus  of 
Paul  with  the  Jesus  of  the  synoptists.  This  brief 
statement  will  indicate  that,  in  my  opinion,  despite 
their  differences,  the  two  are  fundamentally  the 
same,  the  differences  in  portrayal  being  due  to  the 
method  of  exposition  and  the  momentary  exigencies 
of  the  apostle's  thought.  Indeed,  after  a  careful  ex- 
amination of  the  facts  in  the  case,  I  am  inclined  to  go 
farther  and  to  say  that  the  man  who  wishes  to  under- 
stand the  significance  of  Jesus  cannot  do  better  than 
to  face  Paul's  problems  and  find  in  Jesus  his  own 
answers  thereto. 

3.  Even  more  pronounced  discrepancies  have  been 
found  between  the  Jesus  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the 
Jesus  of  the  synoptists.  But  a  dispassionate  exami- 
nation will  show  that  these  differences  lie  again  in  the 
region  of  interpretation.  There  are  no  significant 
details  of  the  life  of  Jesus  given  in  the  Johannine 
writings  that  are  not  already  to  be  found,  at  least 
in  kind,  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  True,  the  Prologue 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  introduces  the  Logos  doctrine. 


Io8         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

but  it  is  a  valuation  of  Jesus  that  can  be  traced 
only  with  difficulty  throughout  the  gospel  as  a  whole. 
The  persistent  valuation  there  is  again  messianic. 
The  chronology,  also,  of  the  messianic  revelation  is 
not  that  of  the  synoptists,  but  when  we  are  quite 
assured  as  to  the  proper  order  of  the  Johannine 
material,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  most  of  these 
difficulties  will  disappear.  If  one  allows  for  the 
practical  and  apologetic  use  which  the  Fourth  Gospel 
makes  of  the  facts  of  Jesus'  career,  he  will  find  in  it 
precisely  the  same  elements  that  are  to  be  found  in  the 
synoptics.  True,  the  line  of  demarcation  between 
fact  and  interpretation  is  in  many  places  impossible 
to  draw,  and  the  portrayal  of  Jesus  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  is  theological  and  religious  rather  than  baldly 
biographical;  but  the  real  Jesus  is  there  as  well 
as  the  author's  comment,  explanation,  and  valua- 
tion. 

To  such  conclusions  as  this,  despite  its  eddies,  the 
main  current  of  modern  scholarship  with  its  explora- 
tion of  the  consciousness  of  Jesus,  its  analysis  of  the 
religious  experience  of  his  first  interpreters,  and  its 
insistence  on  historical  rather  than  dogmatic  pro- 
cedure, seems  to  me  to  be  moving.  Varieties  of  inter- 
pretative details  are  undeniably  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  they  are  interpretations  that  radiate  from 


JESUS   THE    CHRIST  I09 

the  same  historical  center.  If  one  starts  with  inci- 
dental statements  and  unique  analogies,  it  is  easy- 
enough  to  find  in  the  New  Testament  only  more  or 
less  discordant  descriptions  of  Jesus.  If,  because  of 
temperament  or  presupposition,  one  prefers  differ- 
ences to  agreements,  these  discordant  descriptions 
will  seem  antagonistic.  But  if  one  starts  with  Jesus 
and  his  own  estimate  of  himself  as  included  in  the 
oldest  materials  of  the  gospels,  it  is  possible  to  see 
how  Christian  experience  in  making  real  to  itself 
the  value  of  that  supreme  person  could  use  all  these 
figures  and  valuations,  and  yet  cherish  the  Figure 
himself  unchanged.  The  unity  of  a  circle  lies  at  the 
point  from  which  the  radii  emerge  rather  than  in  some 
point  in  the  circumference  which  for  the  moment 
attracts  one's  attention.  In  the  case  of  the  New 
Testament  that  center  is  the  historical  Jesus  of  the 
sources  interpreted  as  the  Christ  —  the  one  whom 
God  had  empowered  by  His  own  resident  spirit  to 
be  a  Saviour. 

in 

The  relation  of  any  creative  personality  to  the 
movement  which  it  inaugurates  is  always  compli- 
cated. In  some  cases  the  founder  of  a  religion  be- 
comes the  controlling  factor  of  its  entire  history. 
His  words  become  a  veritable  law  which  it  is  sacrilege 


no         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

to  break.  In  other  cases  the  movement  sweeps 
away  from  its  founder,  and  takes  up  into  itself  such 
various  elements  as  to  become  quite  other  than  that 
originally  intended.  In  still  other  cases  the  founder 
of  a  religion  disappears  historically,  and  the  reli- 
gion that  bears  his  name  is  in  utter  ignorance  as  to 
his  personality.  In  no  religion  except  Christianity, 
however,  unless  it  be  Buddhism,  is  the  personality, 
as  distinguished  from  the  teachings  of  its  founder, 
of  actual  religious  value.  Even  Mahomet  is  only  the 
Prophet  of  Allah. 

Christianity  is  here  unique  in  that  it  has  always 
made  the  personal  experience  of  Jesus  its  center. 
The  teaching  of  the  church  has  emphasized  the  facts 
rather  than  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Take  from 
Christian  theology  the  person,  the  death,  and  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  there  would  not  be  much 
Christian  theology  left.  True,  at  the  present  time 
Protestantism  is  complementing  its  emphasis  upon 
these  historical  aspects  with  the  ideals  set  forth  in  the 
gospel,  which  are,  to  a  considerable  extent  at  least, 
independent  of  historical  episodes  in  the  life  of  Jesus. 
Indeed,  it  must  be  added  that  there  is  a  tendency,  by 
no  means  weak,  to  dehistoricalize  Christianity  alto- 
gether and  make  it  into  a  religious  philosophy  as 
indifferent  to  the  historical  Christ  as  Zoroastrianism 


JESUS   THE    CHRIST  III 

is  to  Zarathustra.  But,  as  I  shall  repeatedly  insist, 
such  a  procedure  is  to  create  a  different  sort  of  reli- 
gion from  the  Christianity  the  centuries  have  known, 
and,  in  its  efforts  to  avoid  theScylla  of  higher  criticism, 
is  sure  to  fall  into  the  grip  of  the  Charybdis  of 
philosophy.  If  Christianity  is  to  possess  genuinely 
religious  power,  it  must  remain  true  to  the  gospel 
which  makes  the  historical  personality  of  Jesus  an 
actual  contribution  to  religious  history. 

The  gospel,  however,  is  not  simply  a  biography. 
Merely  to  believe  that  Jesus  existed  is  not  to  have 
religious  faith.  It  is  conceivable  that  he  might  have 
lived  in  Nazareth  or  some  obscure  city  of  Ephraim 
and  been  all  that  he  was  as  far  as  his  personal  ex- 
perience of  God  is  concerned,  and  yet  have  been  of  no 
religious  significance.  If,  then,  some  search  of  an- 
cient records  had  found  that  he  thus  lived,  one  could, 
in  the  scientific  spirit,  assent  to  the  fact,  and  yet  re- 
main in  such  ignorance  as  to  his  real  significance  as 
to  see  in  him  simply  a  footnote  of  religious  history. 
The  real  significance  of  the  historical  Jesus  lies  in  the 
i  fact  that  in  him  the  Spiritual  Life  for  which  humanity 
\  has  searched  was  perfectly  brought  in  terms  of  time 
and  human  relationships.  He  is  more,  even,  than  a 
mere  example ;  he  is  a  datum  for  religious  induction 
as  truly  as  the  earthworms  studied  by  Darwin  were 


112         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

data  for  the  exposition  of  the  laws  of  life.  In  him 
we  have  demonstrated  the  power  of  that  spiritual  life 
to  triumph  over  sin  and  death.  Despite  the  jeers  of 
the  crowds  at  the  cross,  the  deliverance  about  which 
Jesus  talked  was  actually  accomplished  in  his  own 
life.  Deprived  of  its  knowledge  of  this,  as  it  were, 
successful  experiment  in  the  spiritual  life,  the  gospel 
becomes  simply  an  ideal  which  stands  over  against  the 
real  world  of  human  endeavor  in  much  the  same 
way  as  the  Platonic  world  of  ideas  stands  over  against 
the  world  of  experience. 

But  this  is  not  to  exhaust  the  content  of  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  Jesus  of  history.  He  is  not  simply  a 
datum  to  be  treated  as  independent  of  the  Christian 
community.  Darwin's  earthworm  was  not  the 
founder  of  evolution.  Jesus  was  the  founder  of 
Christianity.  And  he  founded  it  as  something 
more  than  a  teacher.  His  paramount  place  in  his- 
tory was  given  him  by  those  who  loved  him,  saw 
in  him  God's  Messiah,  and  followed  him  and  his 
teachings  as  they  would  follow  the  veritable  God 
Himself,  to  the  death.  The  Jesus  of  history  became 
the  Christ  of  experience.  Personal  love  of  a  histor- 
ical character  was  transformed  into  religious  faith  in 
him  as  more  than  a  person  in  history. 

In  this  Jesus  shared  in  our  common  lot.     A  man 


JESUS   THE    CHRIST  II3 

can  be  a  teacher  only  when  some  one  is  taught,  a 
leader  only  when  there  are  those  who  are  led.  Soc- 
rates without  Plato  would  not  have  been  the  Soc- 
rates centuries  have  honored.  Jesus  the  historical 
person  of  Galilee  and  Jerusalem  became  the  Saviour 
of  the  centuries  as  he  became  the  Christ  of  the 
Christian  community.  That  is  to  say,  as  he  evoked 
faith  in  himself  as  the  divine  Saviour. 

We  are  accustomed  to  the  discussion  as  to  whether 
the  ''Christ  of  experience"  is  the  Jesus  of  history. 
The  distinction,  as  has  already  been  implied,  is,  with 
proper  limitations,  legitimate.  But  there  is  need  here 
of  clear  thinking.  Analysis  discovers  several  "  Chris ts 
of  experience. "  There  are :  the  Jesus  who  lies  behind 
the  earliest  documents  of  Christianity;  the  Messiah 
of  the  completed  New  Testament  literature;  the 
metaphysical  Son  of  God,  the  incarnation  of  the 
Logos  of  the  creeds  and  the  theologians;  the  "es- 
sential" Christ  found  by  moderns  in  history  and 
Christian  experience  and  worshiped  by  the  church 
as  God,  all  but  detached  from  the  original  Jesus. 
With  which  of  these  concentric  personal  ideals  of  the 
spiritual  life  can  the  modern  man  concern  himself  ? 

To  an  extent  at  first  unrealized,  with  them  all. 
But  he  is  to  keep  central  the  Jesus  of  history.     Then 
as  he  recapitulates,  as  it  were,  in  his  own  experience 
I 


114    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

that  development  of  definitions  and  values  of  Jesus 
which  has  marked  the  faith  of  the  church  does  he 
come  to  see  that,  to  use  Wenley's  terms,  the  historical 
Jesus  who  was  is  the  metahistorical  Christ  who  is. 
If  his  starting  point  be  the  Jesus  of  the  sources  and  if 
his  attitude  be  religiously  sympathetic,  his  valuation 
will  proceed  along  the  line  followed  by  the  first  dis- 
ciples. Jesus  will  himself  compel  his  acceptance  as 
the  divine  Saviour,  and  the  modern  man's  Credo  will, 
to  that  extent  at  least,  be  the  equivalent  of  that  of 
the  Christian  community  of  all  ages. 

I.  Fortunately  we  can  recover  the  essential  content 
of  the  first  confession  of  faith  in  Jesus  as  Christ. 
It  was  not  a  merely  formal  definition.  In  ascribing 
to  Jesus  the  messianic  dignity,  the  apostles  and  their 
converts  were  using  a  well-recognized  term  of  value 
that  implied  rather  than  presupposed  a  metaphysical 
estimate  of  his  person.  The  historical  and  compara- 
tive study  so  characteristic  of  recent  years  gives  us 
the  content  with  some  precision.  The  apocalypses, 
the  sayings  of  the  rabbis,  the  expectations  of  the 
masses,  notwithstanding  their  differences,  are  here  at 
one.  The  Christ  was  to  be  more  than  a  popular 
hero;  he  was  to  be  more  than  a  conqueror.  As  has 
already  been  said,  he  was  to  be  the  one  whom  God's 
Spirit  empowered  to  save  His  people.     That  is  the 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  II^ 

very  heart  of  the  messianic  hope  that  among  the  Jews 
reached  its  most  perfect  expression  in  the  Seventeenth 
Psalm  of  Solomon.  Its  elements  are  there  clear: 
the  presence  through  unction  (or,  as  the  Greek  would 
say,  incarnation)  of  God  in  a  human  individual; 
and  the  sinless  character  and  redemptive  office 
and  power  given  that  individual  by  such  divine 
presence.  This  deliverance  to  be  accomplished  was 
described  sometimes  in  terms  of  ordinary  politics, 
sometimes  in  terms  of  catastrophe;  but  it  always 
implied  moral  elements.  The  new  Israel  was  to  be 
imperial  because  it  was  to  be  composed  of  "sons  of 
God,"  a  "holy  people."  "The  tribes  shall  be 
sanctified;"  "in  holiness  shall  he  lead  them  all,  and 
there  shall  no  pride  be  among  them  that  any  should 
be  oppressed"  —  this  was  the  noblest  hope  of  Phari- 
saism. A  Christ  that  did  not  save  the  righteous  would 
be  the  Antichrist. 

And  these  elements  we  find  in  the  messianic  title 
the  early  Christians  gave  their  Master.  With  it 
they  doubtless  transferred  also  their  inherited 
beliefs  as  to  preexistence  and  origin,  but  Paulinism 
no  more  than  Judaism  centered  about  such  quasi- 
metaphysical  conceptions.  Spiritual  life,  goodness, 
power  to  bring  individual  and  social  salvation,  through 
the  resident  Spirit  of  God,  these  are  the  central 


Il6         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

elements  of  the  messianic  valuation  wherever  found 
in  the  New  Testament.  It  was  because  the  historical 
Jesus  actually  was  believed  by  his  immediate  friends 
to  possess  these  characteristics  that  the  messianic 
title  was  given  him.  That  is  their  persistent  and 
unanimous  Christology.  And  these  characteristics  the 
modern  man  also  can  discover  in  the  historical  Jesus 
and  in  the  Jesus  who  has  worked  in  history.  Age 
after  age  has  sought  to  express  its  estimate  of  his 
redemptive  power  in  its  own  equivalent  of  the  messi- 
anic description.  The  resulting  definitions  have  not 
always  been  regarded  as  such  equivalents,  and  the 
development  of  authoritative  ecclesiastical  dogma 
has  sometimes  obscured  their  functional  office.  But 
here  again  historical  insight  should  enable  the  mod- 
ern man  to  perceive  the  continuous  spiritual  content 
rather  than  divergent  concepts  in  theological  valua- 
tion. Discovering  it,  be  his  metaphysical  formula 
what  it  may,  he  knows  Jesus  as  the  revelation  of  a 
redemptive  God,  and  in  his  own  terms  expresses  his 
own  equivalent  for  that  eternal  power  of  Jesus  to 
elevate  and  deepen  the  spiritual  life  which  the  early 
Christians  described  as  messianic. 

2.  From  this  point  of  view  the  modern  man  can 
appreciate  and,  in  the  equivalent  terms  of  his  own 
thinking,  can  derive  help  from  the  evangelic  estimate 


JESUS   THE    CHRIST  II7 

of  the  holy  life  of  Jesus.  That,  too,  is  implied  by  the 
messianic  valuation  in  terms  of  superhuman  spiritual 
life  as  it  was  revealed  in  the  field  of  morals. 

In  the  same  proportion  as  we  know  what  sin  is  do 
we  know  what  righteousness  is.  The  older  world  to 
whom  sin  meant  something  static  or  negative  or  even 
substantial  could  discuss  as  to  whether  Jesus  could 
not  or  did  not  sin.  To  the  modern  man  such  a  ques- 
tion's all  but  unintelligible.  Morality  is  not  quanti- 
tative. It  is  a  relation  of  the  individual  to  his 
situation,  a  matter  of  social  adjustment  rather  than 
of  absolute  standards,  however  true  it  may  be  that 
righteousness  as  an  attitude  of  soul  is  timeless. 
Actions  are  not  good ;  a  man  is  good.  Moral  struggle 
which  we  see  so  clearly  on  the  pages  of  the  gospel  rec- 
ords of  Jesus  is  only  what  would  be  expected  of  spir- 
itual life  marked  by  moral  perfection.  New  duties 
came  to  Jesus  with  the  same  interrogation  as  that  with 
which  they  come  to  all  men.  In  him  as  in  all  human- 
ity there  was  the  struggle  between  the  spiritual  and 
the  physical  elements  of  personality.  In  the  wilder- 
ness when  he  faced  his  own  ideals,  by  the  lake  side 
when  men  would  make  him  king,  on  the  mountain 
side  when  Peter  urged  him  to  choose  the  lower  idea 
of  messiahship,  in  Gethsemane  when  the  apparent 
unrighteousness  of  defeat  tempted  him  to  escape, 


Il8         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

and  on  the  cross  when  the  awful  doubt  of  God's  own 
goodness  beset  him,  Jesus  faced  genuinely  moral  is- 
sues. And  there  is  yet  to  be  shown  any  clear  evidence 
that  he  ever  chose  the  secondary  in  preference  to  the 
supreme  good.  The  spiritual  always  was  supreme. 
Prescientific  views  of  nature,  to  some  measure  at  least, 
he  seems  to  have  shared  with  the  men  of  his  day ;  but 
his  moral  decisions  were  infallible.  He  was  sinless. 
He,  rather  than  his  teaching,  is  our  final  standard  of 
the  moral  life.  And  what  is  even  more,  his  perfec- 
tion has  revealed  that  the  spiritual  life  can  triumph  in 
the  moral  field. 

So  at  least  the  heart  of  humanity  as  a  whole  has 
testified.  Those  who  have  questioned  the  ethic  of 
Jesus  have  in  reality  charged  him  with  not  agreeing 
with  their  own  theories  of  right.  He  who  sees  in 
Jesus  one  genetically  related  with  the  process  in  which 
our  race  is  involved  can  see  how  in  truth  he  was  sub- 
ject to  the  backward  pull  of  humanity,  how  he  could 
be  tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we,  and  yet  be  without 
sin.  For  temptations  may  spring  from  the  tendency  of 
a  good  to  dominate  a  life  to  which  it  has  contributed 
and  by  which  it  has  been  outgrown,  or  they  may 
spring  from  without  in  the  form  of  some  suggestion 
to  unworthy  action  made  by  an  individual  (like  Peter 
at  Philippi)  or  a  society  (like  Pharisaism  as  an  aggres- 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  II9 

sive  institution)  not  under  the  domination  of  the 
same  high  ideals  of  him  to  whom  it  is  made. 

We  find  here  one  of  those  contradictions  that  still 
further  set  Jesus  apart  from  all  those  who  have  lived 
the  life  of  the  spirit.  Not  only  have  we  no  record  of 
his  having  yielded  to  temptation,  but  we  have  no 
\  record  of  his  ever  having  used  in  his  teaching  any 
\  experience  of  repentance  and  forgiveness.  Had 
Jesus  possessed  the  remembrance  of  such  experience, 
we  should  indubitably  have  had  from  him,  with  his 
pellucid  honesty  and  hatred  of  hypocrisy,  some  word 
as  to  the  peace  which  follows  the  consciousness  of 
forgiveness.  Even  less  absolutely  honest  men  like 
Augustine  and  Pascal  abound  in  such  consciousness, 
and  with  Paul  it  is  central.  This  silence  is  his  own 
greatest  testimony  to  his  own  sense  of  moral  perfec- 
tion. And,  what  is  an  almost  equal  marvel,  men  never 
read  such  forgiveness  between  the  lines  of  his  call 
to  repentance. 

Yet  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  was  not  a  negative 
quantity.  He  did  not  merely  keep  himself  from 
doing  that  which  was  wicked;  he  was  no  moral 
valetudinarian  kept  from  sin  by  a  removal  from  the 
world  of  actual  endeavor.  The  sinlessness  of  Jesus 
was  positive.  He  kept  from  doing  wrong  by  doing 
right.     In  him  spiritual  life  reached  moral  perfection 


120         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

as  it  expressed  itself  in  love.  Because  of  this  supreme 
fact  the  gospel  is  again  more  than  a  philosophy.  Its 
message  of  the  way  of  salvation  is  not  that  of  teach- 
ing which,  like  Buddhism,  bids  men  kill  desire.  The 
perfect  spiritual  life  of  Jesus  expressed  itself  in  actual 
historical  social  relations.  That  is  one  reason  why 
he  has  always  so  appealed  to  life.  In  the  same  pro- 
portion as  men  have  made  him  an  abstract  doctrine, 
be  it  never  so  precisely  formulated,  his  power  over 
human  hearts  has  wavered.  Those  have  gained 
most  from  him  who  have  become  as  it  were  little 
children,  seeing  in  him  help  rather  than  a  problem. 
He  dealt  not  with  universals,  but  with  the  universal 
as  conditioned  by  the  exigencies  of  actual  life.  The 
spirit  of  the  Lord  was  upon  him  to  strengthen  him  to 
such  homely  deliverance  as  giving  sight  to  the  blind, 
hearing  to  the  deaf,  the  gospel  to  the  poor. 

"And  so  the  Word  had  breath,  and  wrought 
With  human  hands  the  creed  of  creeds 
In  loveliness  of  perfect  deeds, 
More  strong  than  all  poetic  thought." 

In  this  exposition  we  see  not  merely  a  perfect  life, 
but  we  see  the  type  of  the  perfect  life.  For  in  the  life 
of  love  which  Jesus  lived  even  to  the  sacrifice  of 
Calvary,  we  see  the  quality  and  the  content  of  the 
life  of  the  spirit.     That  is  the  real  meaning  of  sinless- 


JESUS   THE    CHRIST  121 

ness.  Spirituality  consists  in  love.  To  be  perfect 
like  God  is  to  be  loving  like  Jesus.  The  spiritual  life 
seeks  not  poverty  but  wealth  of  self-expression. 
''I  came,"  said  Jesus,  in  that  marvelous  verse  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel:  "that  they  may  have  life  and  may 
have  it  abundantly." 

This  social  content  of  the  spiritual  life  it  is  that 
gives  Jesus  his  supreme  position  among  the  founders 
of  religions.  Moral  perfection  must  come  to  others 
as  it  came  to  him  through  the  expression  of  the  life 
of  the  spirit  in  ordinary  human  surroundings.  His 
followers  were  not  to  be  taken  from  the  world.  As- 
ceticism, self-depreciation,  abnormality  in  any  form, 
are  no  part  of  spiritual  living.  To  be  like  Jesus  a 
man  must  not  withdraw  from  life;  he  must  plunge 
into  life.  But  in  so  doing  he  must  maintain  the 
perspective  of  values  which  Jesus  himself  maintained. 
Only  thus  can  he  approximate  that  perfection  which 
on  its  negative  side  is  sinlessness  and  on  its  positive 
side  is  self-sacrificing,  loving  service  to  one's  world. 

3.  Yet  moral  perfection  is  not  the  greatest  and 
most  vital  quality  men  have  seen  in  Jesus.  They  have 
not  only  admired,  they  have  worshiped  him,  and  have 
been  saved  by  him.  Through  faith  in  himself  he 
evokes  the  spiritual  life  and  compels  its  allegiance. 
We  are  not  now  speaking  metaphysically,  but  simply 


122    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

historically.  Doubt  or  explain  such  faith  by  what- 
ever psychology  or  philosophy  one  prefers,  the  fact 
remains.  Men  have  found  the  salvation  of  God  in 
him. 

It  could  not  be  otherwise  if  he  were  what  he  be- 
lieved himself  to  be.  In  the  light  of  the  history  of  the 
term,  to  be  the  Christ  meant  to  Jesus  that  God  was 
present  in  his  person  as  the  source  of  his  redemptive 
power.  It  is  confidence  in  this  estimate  —  an  esti- 
mate which  was  the  property  of  Jesus  as  truly  as  of  his 
first  interpreters,  —  that  lies  back  of  the  emphasis 
which  historical  orthodoxy  placed  upon  Jesus  as  the 
Son  of  God.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  although 
it  sprang  in  part  from  the  irrepressible  tendencies  of 
Greek  Christians  toward  metaphysics,  when  formu- 
lated in  the  creeds  of  Nicaea  and  Constantinople, 
was  really  the  outcome  of  a  sense  of  the  need  of  a 
divine  redemption  for  sinful  man.  That  very  shibbo- 
leth of  orthodoxy,  the  word  *'consubstantial,"  was 
something  more  than  a  term  of  mere  metaphysics. 
Employed  as  it  was  because  it  expressed  not  so 
much  what  the  Athanasians  believed  as  what  the 
Arians  did  not  believe,  it  gives  no  support  to  the 
charge  that  the  Christians  of  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries  were  fighting  over  a  diphthong.  The  real 
issue  was  whether  the  redemption  actually  experienced 


JESUS   THE    CHRIST  1 23 

by  those  who  had  believed  in  Jesus  was  wrought  by 
God  or  by  some  being  neither  man,  God,  nor  angel. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  that  sort  of  logic  which 
cleverly  disembowels  conclusions  from  major  prem- 
ises, the  arguments  against  which  Athanasius  and 
the  Western  world  contended  are  unanswerable.  But 
the  trinitarian  formula  was  something  more  than  a 
speculation  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Godhead  before  the 
birth  of  Jesus.  It  was  an  attempt  to  express  a  final 
judgment  of  value  in  terms  of  metaphysics.  A  divine 
salvation  argued  a  divine  Saviour.  That  for  which 
Athanasius  stood  could  not  be  expressed  accurately 
in  any  term  at  his  disposal.  The  difficulty  with 
the  entire  discussion  lay  in  its  attempt  to  deal  with 
ultimate  terms,  and  ultimate  terms  cannot  be  defined. 
But  the  significance  of  God  can  be  expressed  by 
symbols,  and  His  nature  in  some  way  pictured  by 
combining  terms  which  can  neither  be  taken  with 
scientific  accuracy  nor  combined  in  a  precise  result- 
ant. That  is  exactly  what  men  claimed  when  they 
talked  about  the  "  eternal  begetting  of  the  Son"  and 
of  his  "  consubstantiality "  with  the  Father.  Tech- 
nical descriptions  of  God  in  the  terms  of  Sabellius 
and  Arius  are  undoubtedly  more  intelligible,  logi- 
cally speaking,  than  are  the  formulas  of  the  Nicene 
creed.      But  their  very  intelligibiHty  is  an  argument 


124    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

against    them.      Their   precision    of    definition    is 
gained  by  the  exclusion  of  values. 

And,  unless  I  altogether  mistake,  the  modern 
man  with  his  presupposition  as  to  the  immanence 
of  the  Spiritual  Life,  or,  as  the  Greeks  called  it. 
the  Logos,  and  his  growing  knowledge  that  truth  can- 
not be  reduced  to  deductive  syllogisms,  will,  if  only 
he  will  use  words  not  too  rigorously,  unexpectedly 
find  himself  in  sympathy  with  the  Nicene  formula  as 
that  which  on  the  whole  best  expresses  in  the  terms  of 
^'essence"  philosophy  the  value  which  his  own  reli- 
gious nature  finds  in  the  Jesus  of  the  gospel,  who  was 
the  Christ  of  Paul.  True,  he  is  more  interested  in  the 
historical  "person"  than  in  metaphysical  ''natures," 
but  a  Jesus  who  is  a  teacher  about  God  is  of  vastly 
different  worth  to  humanity  than  a  Christ  who,  like 
the  bit  of  carbon  blazing  with  the  electric  current, 
is  an  individual  made  incandescent  by  the  actual 
presence  of  God,  the  immanent  Spiritual  Life  upon 
which  our  own  spiritual  life  rests.  Many  questions 
as  to  the  person  of  Jesus  must  be  held  open  as  long  as 
they  wait  upon  the  researches  of  honest  criticism, 
but  they  cannot  invalidate  the  conviction  that,  how- 
ever feeble  and  inadequate  our  vocabularies  may  be, 
we  have  in  Jesus  God  redemptively  revealed  in  an  in- 
dividual personality.     The  modem  man  has  assured 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  1 25 

himself  that  Jesus  is  man  of  very  man,  but  in  his 
surrender  to  him  through  faith,  he  will  be  restless 
until  he  also  feels  in  him  God  of  very  God.  And 
however  he  reaches  this  conclusion,  whether  it  be 
through  the  high  altitudes  of  discussion  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  Logos,  or,  distrusting  all  metaphysics, 
through  a  Thomas-like  surrender  to  the  historical 
Jesus,  he  finds  in  it  a  satisfaction  of  his  deepest  spir- 
itual needs. 

The  Christian  salvation  has  thus  become  an  ele- 
ment of  the  experience  of  the  centuries.  Jesus  is  the 
one  person  to  whom  we  can  look  with  religious  faith. 
Plato  and  Socrates  and  Gotama  Buddha  are  among 
our  teachers;  but  Western  civilization,  waiving  all 
questions  as  to  his  metaphysical  deity,  worships 
Jesus  as  the  only  person  who  can  bring  to  its  members 
and  to  itself  a  sense  of  divine  forgiveness  and  an 
experience  of  regeneration. 

4.  Such  a  miracle  —  for  what  other  word  pictures 
the  situation  ?  —  in  the  range  of  spiritual  experience 
inevitably  forces  the  modern  man,  if  only  he  will 
think  long  enough,  into  essential  harmony  with 
the  evangelic  conception  of  Jesus'  messianic  per- 
sonality. He  himself  becomes  a  miracle.  Miracu- 
lous, let  us  hasten  to  say,  not  in  the  sense  that  there 
is  in  him  any  violation  of  the  constructive  laws  of 


126         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

nature,  but  miraculous  in  the  sense  that  in  him  spirit- 
ual experience  finds  an  exception  in  terms  of  perfec- 
tion. Jesus  was  not  apart  from  humanity.  To 
doubt  that  was  as  hateful  a  heresy  to  the  fathers  of 
orthodoxy  as  to  doubt  his  deity.  He  lived  subject 
to  the  conditions  which  control  the  relations  of  the 
individual  in  any  given  historical  environment.  But 
in  him  those  relations  were  perfectly  maintained  in 
terms  of  freedom  possible  only  to  the  divine  will. 
If  God  were  to  have  become  individualized  in  the 
historical  situation  set  by  the  Judaism  of  the  first 
century  of  our  era,  we  believe  he  would  have  lived 
as  Jesus  lived.  But  such  way  of  living,  this  quality 
of  the  spiritual  personality  as  exhibited  in  social 
relations,  is  independent  of  peculiarities  in  the  histori- 
cal conditions.  That  Jesus  spoke  Aramaic  was,  as 
the  schoolmen  might  say,  an  accident;  that  he  was 
God  incarnate  and  revealed  is  a  matter  of  everlasting 
significance.  History  here  reaches  over  into  religion, 
not  as  furnishing  a  bewildering  exception  in  the 
spiritual  order,  but  as  presenting  a  perfect  and  im- 
pelling exposition  of  that  order.  As  Jesus  himself 
said,  he  was  the  Son  of  Man,  the  exposition  in  terms 
of  an  historical  situation  of  those  timeless  values 
that  shall  characterize  the  kingdom  of  God. 
5.  But  the  gospel  is  not  content  to  leave  Jesus  a  sort 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  1 27 

of  lay  figure  to  be  clothed  with  the  ideals  of  humanity. 
To  use  the  language  of  the  schools,  it  conceives  of 
him  in  terms  of  existence  as  truly  as  in  terms  of  values. 
It  never  elaborates  metaphysically  the  problems  of  his 
person,  but  it  has  its  Christologies  none  the  less. 
For  in  the  exposition  of  his  person  as  set  forth  by  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  at  least  four  expositions 
of  his  person  are  given. 

There  is,  first,  the  conception  of  unction  which  is  in 
all  four  of  the  gospels ;  that  is  to  say,  the  coming  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  upon  him  at  the  baptism.  The  difference 
between  such  experience  and  that  of  others  is  sharply 
defined  in  the  gospels.  It  differed  from  that  of  the 
prophets  by  reason  of  its  permanence.  The  Holy 
Spirit  abode  in  him.  The  difference  between  his  and 
\the  spiritual  experience  of  the  Christian  believer  is 
that  between  the  perfect  and  the  imperfect,  and  even 
more  the  difference  in  function.  The  Holy  Spirit  em- 
powered him  to  save;  it  empowered  others  to  be 
saved.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  repeatedly  said  by  Paul 
and  by  Jesus  himself  to  work  in  both  Jesus  and 
those  who  accept  him  as  the  Christ.  But  in  the 
latter  case  his  work  is  to  lead  men  into  all  truth 
by  taking  and  revealing  to  them  the  things  of 
Christ. 

Second,  there  is  the  concept  of  Paul  of  the  incama- 


128         THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

tion  in  Jesus  of  the  preexistent  Christ.  Just  how 
this  incarnation  was  accompHshed  Paul  does  not 
speak  unless  it  be  in  the  great  passage  of  Philippians 
in  which  the  Christ  is  said  to  have  emptied  himself 
and  to  have  taken  upon  himself  the  form  of  a  servant, 
becoming  in  the  likeness  of  man.  Such  a  view  ap- 
parently presupposes  the  current  Jewish  belief  of 
preexistence  of  souls,  and  from  that  point  of  view  is 
perfectly  intelligible.  A  doctrine  of  a  merely  ideal 
preexistence  of  the  Christ  in  my  judgment  cannot  be 
established  from  the  study  of  pre-Christian  Jewish 
thought.  Every  soul  was  held  to  be  preexistent,  and 
at  the  moment  of  conception  was  conducted  by  the 
angel  who  had  it  in  charge  from  the  treasure  house 
under  the  throne  of  God  to  its  human  embryo. 
From  such  a  point  of  view  it  was  not  difficult  to  con- 
ceive of  the  Christ  as  having  preexisted  as  the  Christ 
and  to  have  been  brought  into  a  human  body. 

In  the  third  place  there  is  the  conception  of  the 
Logos  who  became  flesh.  It  has  only  one  clear  ex- 
pression in  the  New  Testament,  namely,  in  the  Pro- 
logue in  the  Gospel  according  to  John.  In  many 
ways,  however,  the  Logos  conception  was  the  Greek 
equivalent  of  the  Pauline  conception  of  the  prehis- 
toric Christ.  As  a  Christian  doctrine  it  differs  from 
that  of  Philo  in  that  the  incarnate  Logos  was  a 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  1 29 

means  of  bringing  man  and  God  together,  instead  of 
keeping  them,  as  it  were,  apart. 

The  word  is  the  means  of  self- revelation ;  so  the 
Logos  or  Eternal  Word  was  the  self-revealing  aspect 
of  the  personality  of  God,  who  found  self-expression 
in  the  individual  Jesus.  So  consonant  is  this  con- 
ception with  the  entire  trend  of  Greek  thought  under 
the  influence  of  which  the  gospel  became  a  theology, 
that  it  naturally  became  the  controlling  element  of 
Christology  and  gave  rise  to  the  first  ecumenical 
creed.  That  creed,  it  is  worth  noticing,  however, 
was  not  concerned  with  the  person  of  the  historic 
Jesus,  but  with  the  relations  of  the  prehistoric, 
eternal  Logos  with  God  the  Father.  Christological 
discussions  prior  to  the  Arian  controversy  were  con- 
cerned primarily  with  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
Logos  had  an  actual  human  body. 

Finally,  there  is  the  explanation  of  the  person  of 
Jesus  through  the  Virgin  Birth  as  narrated  in  the 
opening  sections  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  Nowhere 
else  in  the  New  Testament  is  there  any  reference  to 
such  birth,  although  there  are  a  number  of  passages 
which  are  not  inconsistent  with  such  a  belief.  It  is 
not  a  part  of  the  gospel  either  of  Mark  or  of  John,  and 
is  omitted  in  the  Pauline  formulation  of  the  gospel 
as  found  in  i  Corinthians,  chapter  15;  it  is  not  in 


130         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

the  list  of  the  ''principles"  given  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  oldest  manu- 
script of  the  gospel  which  has  reached  us,  the  Sinaitic 
Syriac  version,  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  there  ex- 
pressly said  that  Joseph  begot  Jesus.  It  first  appears 
in  Christian  theology  in  Ignatius,  where,  however, 
it  is  referred  to  as  a  currently  accepted  article  of 
Christian  faith. 

The  attitude  of  many  modem  New  Testament 
scholars  toward  the  Virgin  Birth  is  one  of  unhesi- 
tating rejection.  Even  in  the  case  of  men  who  are 
not  swayed  by  any  anti-miraculous  prejudices  the 
evidence  that  the  infancy  sections  were  parts  of  the 
original  gospel  are  judged  to  be  not  wholly  satisfac- 
tory. Hardly  sufficient  weight,  however,  has  been 
given  to  the  argument  for  the  pre-Christian  character 
of  the  messianic  prophecy  found  in  the  songs  of 
Mary  and  Zacharias.  If  the  sections  as  a  whole  wxre 
invented  by  the  later  Christians  in  order  to  explain 
the  messianic  formula  of  the  Son  of  God,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  why  these  messianic  descriptions,  so  admir- 
ably expressing  the  religious  conditions  under  which 
they  are  said  to  have  been  given,  should  not  have 
been  rewritten.  This  is  true  of  much  other  Jewish 
material,  like  the  Apocalypses  of  Baruch  and  Fourth 
Esdras,  where  Jewish  material  was  appropriated  by 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  I3I 

the  early  church.  On  the  other  hand,  the  argument 
that  is  sometimes  so  passionately  urged  that  without 
the  infancy  sections  Jesus  would  be  a  bastard  is  faulty 
in  that  it  disregards  the  fact  that  if  the  sections 
should  be  shown  to  be  later  additions  of  the  Christian 
church  the  entire  story  of  his  birth  disappears. 

The  tendency  of  the  more  conservative  modern 
theologians  is  towards  an  apologetic  position. 
Whether  or  not  the  infancy  stories  shall  survive  the 
test  of  criticism  now  in  progress,  the  messianic  per- 
son of  Jesus  as  it  stands  revealed  in  the  entire  New 
Testament  literature  is  unaffected.  On  all  sides  it  is 
agreed  that  the  disciples  accepted  him  as  the  Christ 
without  any  knowledge  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  Paulin- 
ism  radiates  not  from  the  manger  but  from  the  cross 
and  the  tomb.  If  these  sections  should  ever  be  re- 
jected by  theologians  as  a  whole  I  cannot  see  that 
there  would  be  any  vital  change  made  in  the  evangeli- 
cal message.  The  Nicaean  formula,  with  its  philoso- 
phy of  the  two  natures,  would  have  to  be  replaced  by 
others  which  would  utilize  other  concepts  to  express 
the  idea  of  the  incarnation  of  the  deity,  but  that  is 
already  necessary  in  any  case  for  those  who  have  re- 
jected the  "  essence"  philosophy  of  the  Greek  schools. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  already  in  modem  the- 
ology belief  in  the  deity  of  Christ  does  not  rise  and  fall 


132         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

with  the  historicity  of  the  infancy  sections.  The 
modern  man  who  has  found  Jesus  a  Saviour  can 
await  without  apprehension  the  final  decision  of  his- 
torical criticism  as  to  their  origin  and  historical  value. 
In  any  case  he  has  the  Christ  of  Paul. 

It  should  not  be  overlooked,  however,  that  there  is 
a  common  element  running  through  all  four  of  these 
explanations  of  the  superhuman  person  of  Jesus. 
In  them  all  he  is  said  to  be  the  embodiment  and  the 
expression  of  God's  Spirit.  The  Logos  doctrine  is 
only  an  equivalent  way  of  expressing  this  fact;  the 
Holy  Spirit  came  upon  him  at  his  baptism;  his  pre- 
existent  personality  was  anointed  so  that  he  was  the 
Christ ;  and  that  which  was  bom  of  Mary  was  said 
to  be  due  to  the  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  in 
this  common  element  of  Christology  the  modem  man 
finds  his  approach  to  the  philosophy  of  the  person  of 
Jesus;  for  he  recognizes  in  it  the  persistent  element 
which  different  Christologies  have  attempted  to 
express.  He  seeks  in  his  own  thought  some  equiva- 
lent concept  that  shall  make  real  and  effective  that 
which  the  heart  of  humanity  has  already  accepted  as 
final,  namely,  that  God  is  in  Christ  reconciling  the 
world  to  Himself. 

For  he  cannot  fail  to  see  that  a  divine  person  is 
demanded  to  account  for  divine  influence.     While 


JESUS    THE    CHRIST  I33 

the  modem  man  may  well  hesitate  to  attempt  to  rein- 
troduce the  Hellenistic  discussions  over  the  formulas 
of  the  metaphysical  deity  of  the  incarnate  Logos, 
whoever  recognizes  the  relationship  of  mind  and 
body  knows  that  spiritual  strength  presupposes 
something  very  close  to  that  which  the  first  masters 
of  theology  called  "substance"  and  "nature." 
True,  their  philosophy  and  trichotomous  psychology, 
their  distinctions  between  "essence"  and  "persons," 
their  theories  of  personality  that  made  duality  of 
nature  and  will  consistent  with  unity  of  person,  have 
passed ;  but  that  which  they  intended  to  express  the 
religious  man  with  historical  intuition  will  feel  is  true. 
The  formula  of  Chalcedon  itself  in  effect  forbids  a 
too  rigorous  philosophy  as  to  the  way  in  which  the 
Logos  and  man  became  one  Person  in  Jesus.  Despite 
all  warnings  humanity  will  make  its  adventurous 
metaphysical  definition  of  the  Person  who  compels 
such  supreme  valuations.  Worth  is  obverse  of 
being.  There  must  be  energy  in  Jesus  sufficient  to 
evoke  his  valuation  as  God.  Shakespeare  in  the 
world  of  poets  was  bom  a  Shakespeare  capable  of 
winning  the  world's  admiration  as  a  supreme  poet. 
Jesus,  the  embodiment  of  a  saving  God,  must  have 
been  born  a  potential  Saviour.  Although  there  are  as 
yet  open  questions  concerning  the  historicity  of  the 


134    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

stories  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  a  man  does  not  need  to 
withhold  rehgious  faith  in  Jesus  until  they  are  an- 
swered. He  stumbles  as  he  tries  to  understand 
some  of  the  Pauline  descriptions  of  a  preexistent 
Messiah  not  yet  incarnate,  and  like  Paul  and  the 
makers  of  the  original  Nicene  creed,  he  may  be  con- 
tent with  a  simple  formula  of  incarnation ;  with  his 
growing  perplexity  over  the  relation  of  God  and  the 
individual,  of  brain  and  thought,  like  the  makers  of 
the  Chalcedonian  creed,  he  may  hesitate  to  commit 
himself  to  any  psychological  explanation  of  the  per- 
son of  Jesus  the  Christ.  But  this  he  knows :  morality 
is  ultimately  an  expression  of  the  energies,  the  quality 
of  being.  A  divine  salvation  demands  a  divine 
Saviour.  If  action  and  character  are  the  outgrowth  of 
preceding  and  conditioning  activities,  he  cannot  stop 
his  search  for  the  source  of  the  experience  of  Jesus 
with  the  baptism  or  with  his  filial  words  to  Mary  in  the 
temple.  With  the  recollection  of  Jesus'  own  self- 
estimate  and  of  his  triumphs  over  those  temptations 
to  which  humanity  as  humanity  is  liable,  his  knowl- 
edge of  physiological  psychology  with  its  insistence 
upon  the  genetic  development  of  personality  forces 
him  back  to  the  manger,  there  to  find  new  meaning 
in  those  words  to  Mary:  ''That  which  is  bom  shall 
be  called  holy,  the  son  of  God."     Whatever  a  man 


JESUS   THE    CHRIST  I35 

may  hold  as  to  the  Virgin  Birth,  in  all  reverence  may 
he  say,  that  what  the  God-man  Jesus  was  among 
men,  the  unborn  Jesus  was  among  the  unborn. 
For  the  Spiritual  Life  of  the  Universe,  that  God 
whom  Jesus  reveals,  even  in  the  mystery  of  his 
conception  must  have  touched  humanity. 

IV 

Such  an  equivalency  of  the  doctrinal  interpreta- 
tions of  Jesus  may  meet  with  small  response  from 
those  who,  preferring  loyalty  to  undefinable  terms, 
cannot  see  judgments  of  value  behind  metaphysical 
formulas,  and  prefer  to  let  differences  of  terminology 
obscure  the  common  substance  of  faith.  Still  less 
will  it  find  acceptance  from  those  who  see  in  Jesus 
only  a  hypersensitive,  ecstatic  temperament  working 
under  the  suggestion  of  a  current  eschatology,  to 
whom  the  first  disciples  attached  their  messianic 
hopes.  But  Jesus'  cautious  use  of  the  figures  of  the 
apocalypses  can  serve  as  the  basis  of  no  such  hy- 
pothesis. Again  we  can  trust  the  common  sense  of  the 
modem  man.  Ecstatics  he  knows,  and  alternating 
personalities,  but  who  is  this  child  of  a  too-ingenious 
religions geschichtliche  method  and  a  pathological  psy- 
chology, who  is  also  the  example  and  saviorof  a  world  ? 

At  all  events,  no  man  can  deny  that  Jesus  has  been 


136         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

a  Savior.  To  express  that  fact  is  the  real  purpose  of 
every  Christology.  All  our  philosophies  and  all  our 
shibboleths  cannot  obscure  or  add  to  this  supreme 
fact.  Because  of  this,  men  whose  response  to  him  has 
brought  freedom  and  peace  and  moral  power,  avoid 
calling  him  more  than  teacher  or  prophet  only  by 
the  over-cautious  denial  of  the  instinctive  response  of 
their  spiritual  life  to  the  Spiritual  Life  they  find  in 
him.  If  Jesus  has  the  value  of  God  to  the  believer, 
then  either  that  judgment  is  unjustifiable  or  Jesus 
actually  possessed  that  which  we  may  call  deity. 
And  if  so,  then  why  should  we  hesitate  to  confess  him 
as  divine  and  to  trust  him  as  divine  and  to  expect 
from  him  works  worthy  of  a  Son  of  God  ? 

In  other  words,  just  because  of  the  messianic,  that 
is  to  say  the  redemptive,  worth  and  accomplishment 
of  Jesus  as  seen  in  history  and  our  own  experience, 
we  find  our  faith  precipitating  itself  in  a  Credo  by 
which  we  endeavor  to  make  the  Jesus  of  history 
redemptively  intelligible  to  the  spiritual  life  of  others. 
We  socialize  our  faith  in  words  that  at  least  symbolize 
it  in  descriptions  of  his  Person.  Again,  though  in  the 
terminology  of  our  modern  world,  we  are  at  one  with 
the  Christian  of  the  past.  For  the  church,  the  body 
of  believers,  secretes  its  creeds  as  a  living  organism 
secretes  its  bony  structure.     To  overstimulate  the 


JESUS    THE   CHRIST  I37 

process  may  mean  death,  but  to  stop  it  means  death 
just  as  surely.  The  real  office  of  formula  is  to  help  an 
age  make  the  experience  of  salvation  intelligible  and 
consistently  tenable.  It  is  a  social  process  in  that  it 
presupposes  community  in  preconceptions  and  social 
experience.  Thus  it  has  been  and  must  be  with  all 
definitions  of  Jesus.  Their  real  purpose  is  practical 
efficiency.  They  have  differed  and  must  differ, 
as  the  social  mind  itself  has  changed.  But  the  spir- 
itual content  is  the  same.  Authoritative  Christology 
has  risen  through  the  efforts  of  deeply  religious  men  to 
maintain  scientifically  or  metaphysically  both  the  God- 
value  and  the  man- value  of  Jesus.  A  social  mind  per- 
meated with  Greek  thought  debated  as  to  the  sonship 
of  the  Logos  before  time  began,  tried  to  formulate 
psychologically  the  relationship  of  the  Logos  to  the 
human  Jesus,  and  then,  deciding  that  there  were  in 
Jesus  two  natures,  queried  if  there  were  one  will. 
These  were  the  questions  which  the  ecumenical 
councils  attempted  to  answer  in  accordance  with  the 
aid  of  a  philosophy  that  has  disappeared  except  as  it 
emerges  in  treatises  on  theology.  Later  centuries 
saw  in  Christ  still  other  reflections  of  their  controlling 
interests.  To  the  Franks,  as  they  went  plundering 
through  Gaul,  he  was  the  God  of  War.  To  the  mediag- 
val  lawyer,  he  was  a  feudal  lord  who  gave  church  and 


138         THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   MODERN   MAN 

state  in  fief.  To  mediaeval  schoolmen  he  was  a  God 
who  became  incarnate  to  pay  by  his  death  the  infi- 
nite debt  due  him  by  finite  men.  Among  reformers 
he  was  the  judge  and  the  savior  of  those  who  trusted 
him.  To  men  of  to-day  he  is  the  immanent  Spiritual 
Life  of  God  focalized  in  a  human  personality. 

Fortunately  a  man  does  not  need  to  be  evangelically 
orthodox  in  order  to  be  evangelical.  There  is  many 
an  honest  soul  who  would  not  agree  with  my  conclu- 
sions who  would  rival  my  personal  loyalty  to  Jesus  the 
Saviour.  In  religion,  as  in  other  phases  of  life,  defini- 
tions are  limitations  in  proportion  as  they  are  believed 
to  be  more  than  symbolic.  The  modern  man  is  prop- 
erly impatient  of  theological  shibboleths,  as  to  what 
we  believe  about  Jesus.  For  faith  is  not  a  defining  of 
him  in  terms  of  being ;  it  is  the  actually  making  of 
him,  as  he  stands  in  the  New  Testament  and  later 
human  experience,  a  working,  controlling  element  in 
God-ward  and  man-ward  self-expression.  Faith 
precedes  our  attempts  to  justify  its  reasonableness. 
Its  evidence  is  in  experience,  not  in  creedal  subscrip- 
tion. And  back  of  the  kaleidoscope  of  creeds  is  the 
persistent  experience  of  a  regenerating,  spiritual  rec- 
onciliation with  God  mediated  by  the  Jesus  who  the 
Christian  community  believes  not  only  was  but  is 
the  redemptive  revelation  of  the  immanent  God. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  LOVE  OF  THE  GOD  OF  LAW 

The  Christ  must  be  a  deliverer.  But  he  can 
only  deliver  as  mankind  is  convinced  that  God 
is  like  him  —  Love. 

"Deliver  us  from  evil."  So  Jesus  taught  his 
disciples  to  pray,  and  the  petition  is  the  same  if 
we  translate  the  Greek  "Deliver  us  from  the  Evil 
One."  For  in  the  mind  of  the  early  Christians 
evil  was  the  work  of  Satan.  Deliverance  from  his 
kingdom  is  coordinate  throughout  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  and  his  apostles  with  deliverance  from  sin 
and  death. 

Just  why  physical  evil  is  in  the  world  humanity 
has  never  been  quite  able  to  discover.  It  is  true 
that  men  of  all  ages  have  endeavored  to  extricate 
some  sweetness  from  the  bitter  by  an  exposition 
of  the  educational  value  of  suffering,  and  of  all  that 
misery  which  comes  upon  humanity  from  the  physi- 
cal universe.  The  Hebrew  prophet  thought  of 
labor  itself  as  a  curse  which  God  brought  upon  men 

139 


140         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

because  of  sin,  but  even  the  Hebrews  in  the  course 

of  time  came  to  see  the  blessing  which  comes  to 

humanity  from  labor.     Later  philosophers  have  also 

taught  us  in  the  spirit  of  Brownmg  to 

"Welcome  each  rebuff 
That  turns  earth's  smoothness  rough; 
Each  sting  that  bids  not  sit  nor  stand  but  go! " 

But  such  philosophy  even  at  its  best  has  never 
quite  satisfied  us.  Despite  it  there  has  always  re- 
mained a  haunting  fear  of  a  relentless  nature, 
and  from  this  fear  has  sprung  that  cry  for  help 
which  is  the  very  soul  of  religion  itself.  Human- 
ity is  at  one  in  the  confession  that  in  itself  it  is 
physically  impotent  in  the  presence  of  a  universe 
that  threatens  at  any  moment  to  crush  it.  It  may 
know  itself  superior  to  that  universe,  but  such  knowl- 
edge does  not  exclude  suffering.  We  cannot  find 
deliverance  from  impersonal  force  in  anything  im- 
personal. It  can  be  ours  only  as  w^e  live  in  a 
spiritual  order  over  which  impersonal  forces  have 
no  control. 

I 

I.  It  is  from  this  point  of  view  that  one  must 
come  to  that  element  of  the  gospel  message  that 
seems  so  remote  to  our  age,  —  the  deliverance  from 
Satan. 


THE  LOVE  OF  THE  GOD  OF  LAW      I4I 

The  belief  in  Satan  is  one  of  the  sturdiest  at- 
tempts ever  made  by  human  reason  to  solve  the 
great  enigma  as  to  how  there  can  be  a  good  God 
at  the  head  of  things  and  yet  there  be  suffering 
throughout  His  world.  Ancient  religion,  whether 
you  find  it  in  the  uplands  of  Persia,  the  plains  of 
Mesopotamia,  the  hills  of  Athens,  the  valley  of 
Egypt,  or  the  mountains  of  Judea,  was  dualistic. 
Either  the  gods  themselves  were  subject  to  some 
implacable  Fate  or  there  were  two  gods,  the  good 
God  and  the  bad  God,  Ahura-Mazda  and  Ahriman, 
Jehovah  and  Satan.  The  explanation  was  satis- 
factory for  practical  purposes.  The  good  God  was 
struggling  with  the  bad  God  and  would  ultimately 
conquer  him.  But  the  good  God  was  not  in  the 
world  and  the  evil  God  was.  The  Jew  and  the 
early  Christian  believed  that  the  prince  of  this 
world  was  Satan.  He  was  to  be  judged,  it  is  true, 
and  his  kingdom  was  to  be  overthrown  and  he 
himself  was  to  be  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire;  but  in 
the  present  evil  age  he  was,  in  the  wisdom  and  in- 
scrutable providence  of  Jehovah,  bringing  misery. 
When  he  was  conquered  all  those  who  were  the 
loyal  subjects  of  Jehovah  would  be  delivered;  but 
not  till  then.  That  was  to  be  the  beginning  of  the 
messianic  bliss. 


142         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

Neither  Persian  nor  Jew  solved  the  problem  which 
this  explanation  left  unanswered,  why  such  a  rule  of 
Satan  could  be  permitted  by  the  good  God.  It  was 
enough  for  them  to  believe  that  it  was,  and  that 
some  day  in  the  dim,  glorious  future  it  would  be 
understood  and  all  evil  recompensed.  It  was  this 
which  called  forth  the  sublimest  heroism  of  the 
Hebrew  prophets.  They  felt  the  misery  of  national 
collapse.  They  saw  the  chosen  people  of  Jehovah 
oppressed  rather  than  supreme;  they  saw  them- 
selves the  martyrs  of  the  very  people  whom  they 
w^ould  serve.  Yet  they  disdained  pessimism.  The 
nation's  suffering  was  vicarious;  the  servant  of 
Jehovah  was  to  heal  others  with  his  stripes,  and  in 
this  faith  they  awaited  the  day  when  such  deliver- 
ance as  Jehovah  might  establish  should  appear. 

And  it  was  an  even  greater  deliverance  the  gospel 
foretold  for  all  who  followed  Jesus'  way. 

2.  The  problem  of  evil  has  been  intensified  rather 
than  lessened  by  the  growing  conviction  that  God 
is  immanent,  for,  if  he  be  immanent,  he  is  certain 
to  be  held  responsible  for  the  constitution  of  things 
as  they  are.  The  sad  complex  of  sorrow  and  suffer- 
ing to  which  humanity  is  exposed  has  not  only  been 
permitted  by  him  but  in  some  way  seems  due  to  him. 
We  are  not  content,  for  instance,  to  lay  disease  to 


THE  LOVE  OF  THE  GOD  OF  LAW      1 43 

devils.  We  see  that  it  is  the  outcome  of  biological 
and  chemical  forces  which  are  a  part  of  the  universe 
itself.  And  although  few  men  are  philosophers 
enough  to  understand  Von  Hartmann's  view  that 
the  will  of  the  Deity,  in  some  dark  way,  sundered 
itself  from  the  divine  reason  and  thus  made  a  world 
of  misery,  the  tragic  query  of  our  day  is,  Can  the 
God  of  Law  be  the  God  of  Love  ? 

II 

I.  Possibly  it  might  appear  that  a  question 
prior  to  this  might  be.  Can  there  be  any  God  at  all? 
Materialism  as  represented  by  Haeckel  would 
answer  this  with  an  emphatic  negative.  The  uni- 
verse, indeed,  is  intelligible,  but  not  personal.  It 
has  its  two  cosmic  laws,  constancy  of  matter  and 
constancy  of  force,  but  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
spirit  either  in  man  or  in  the  universe. 

When  such  a  view  is  set  forth  with  a  wealth  of 
learning  it  is  no  easy  task  to  attempt  its  refutation; 
and  it  is  becoming  generally  admitted  that  a  dem- 
onstration of  the  existence  of  God  lies  outside  the 
region  of  pure  metaphysics.  Since  the  day  of  Kant 
our  philosophy  has  been  forced  to  admit  that  ulti- 
mate conceptions  must  be  self-validating.  It  is  in 
the  realm  of  practical  reason,  as  Kant  would  say, 


144         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

or,  as  we  now  prefer  to  say,  in  the  spiritual  order 
where  values  are  timeless,  that  religion  finds  its 
real  support.  If  we  cannot  metaphysically  prove 
the  existence  of  God,  we  can  show  that  it  is  reason- 
able and  helpful  to  believe  in  Him.  Only  in  Him 
do  we  find  the  explanation  of  our  own  spiritual  life 
that  finds  coherence  and  unity  above  time  and 
change  in  the  unrelated  phenomena  and  the  relent- 
less contradictions  of  impersonal  nature.  If  there 
were  more  ultimate  realities  than  God  we  should 
be  able  to  demonstrate  His  existence.  So  much  at 
least  can  be  said  for  a  pluralistic  universe !  But 
as  long  as  He  Himself  is  ultimate  we  are  estopped 
treating  Him  as  less  than  ultimate.  We  can  believe 
in  Him  only  as  we  yield  to  the  overwhelming  sense 
of  our  need  of  Him,  and  to  the  spiritual  life  with  its 
persistence  of  values  that  imply  Him.  Naturalism 
in  all  its  forms  gets  its  strength  in  the  region  of  the 
intellect.  Religion  finds  its  seat  in  the  spiritual 
region  where  we  admit  not  only  that  a  thing  is,  but 
that  it  is  of  practical  value  to  us  in  helping  us  to  a 
unity  of  self-expression  and  purpose. 

Nor  are  we  shut  out  from  legitimate  arguments 
of  another  sort.  Even  materialism  would  hardly 
deny  that  there  are  relations  between  the  various 
activities    of    the     universe    which    are    strikingly 


THE  LOVE  OF  THE  GOD  OF  LAW      1 45 

analogous  to  those  which  in  human  life  imply  pur- 
pose. There  are  those,  it  is  true,  who  would  insist 
that  this  is  due  to  projection  of  our  own  experience 
into  the  physical  universe  and  that  there  are  changes 
but  no  goal.  But  the  general  drift  of  the  evolution- 
ary thought  is  steadily  along  the  line  which  makes 
ever  easier  interpretation  of  the  universe  in  terms 
of  spiritual  teleology.  And  in  the  same  proportion 
as  purpose  appears  in  the  world  are  we  justified  in 
attributing  that  purpose  to  a  resident  Soul.  At 
the  very  least  the  universe  is  such  that  it  is  suscep- 
tible to  such  interpretation  as  our  own  experience 
suggests;  and  it  is  axiomatic  that  the  ultimate  in- 
terpretation of  the  universe  must  include  those 
activities  which  in  ourselves  we  call  personal.  A 
universe  that  contains  or  —  for  the  sake  of  argument 
—  has  produced  thought  and  feeling  and  will  can- 
not itself  be  said  to  give  the  lie  to  a  belief  in  a  cosmic 
Person  working  within  our  own  external  world,  not 
reaching  over  into  our  universe  and  doing  things 
from  without. 

But  materialism  is  by  no  means  the  source  of  the 
only  opposition  to  this  primary  conception  of  the 
gospel  that  the  God  of  Law  is  the  God  of  Love. 
Agnosticism  is  a  far  more  elusive  and  potent  enemy, 
for  it  belongs  to  that  dark  region  in  which  ignorance 

L 


146         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

and  knowledge  so  offset  each  other  as  to  leave  the 
mind  in  equipoise,  or,  what  is  more  unfortunate, 
indifferent.  Here,  too,  the  really  corrective  argu- 
ment lies  in  the  region  of  the  practical  quality  of 
faith.  For  no  man  can  quite  rid  himself  of  that 
irrepressible  faculty.     As  Bishop  Blougram  argues : 

"All  we  have  gained  by  one  unbelief 
[s  a  life  of  doubt  diversified  by  faith, 
For  one  of  faith  diversified  by  doubt: 
We  called  the  chessboard  white,  —  we  call  it  black. 

BeHef 

As  unbelief  before,  shakes  us  by  fits, 
Confounds  us  Hke  its  predecessor." 

Nothing  could  be  truer,  for,  even  granting  that  the 
metaphysical  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God 
equally  balance,  —  a  concession  which  I  am  very 
far  from  being  ready  to  make  —  it  still  follows  that 
a  life  working  under  a  belief  in  God  is,  despite  its 
moments  of  agonizing  doubt,  vastly  more  effective, 
constructive,  peaceful,  and  healthy,  than  a  life  of 
negation  which  is  tortured  by  moments  of  faith. 

2.  Yet,  after  all,  the  question  as  to  the  existence 
of  God  is  one  with  which  the  gospel  is  not  pri- 
marily concerned.  It  assumes  His  existence.  It 
never  endeavors  to  persuade  men  that  He  is.  It 
rather  would  convince  them  that  this  God,  the  very 
God  of  the  cosmos,  is  one  whose  fundamental  char- 


THE  LOVE  OF  THE  GOD  OF  LAW      1 47 

acter  is  love,  whose  closest  earthly  analogy  is  pa- 
rental. He  is  not  Process,  He  is  not  God-idea.  He 
is  Father. 

But  if  he  be  a  Father,  how  can  there  be  misery  and 
suffering  and  all  the  other  brood  of  evil?  It  is  no 
less  a  Christian  than  Augustine  who  cries,  "What 
flood  of  eloquence  would  ever  suffice  to  portray  the 
tribulations  of  this  life,  to  describe  its  wretchedness, 
which  is,  as  it  were,  a  kind  of  hell  in  our  present 
existence?" 

(i)  A  question  like  this  which  reaches  down  into 
the  very  depths  of  existence  is  not  to  be  answered  by 
a  denial  of  the  reality  of  the  very  conditions  that 
set  the  problem.  That  is  as  confusing  as  it  is  naive. 
Since  Schopenhauer  there  have  been  those  who 
have  attempted  to  cut  the  Gordian  knot  of  philoso- 
phy by  regarding  the  phenominal  world  as  illusion. 
Such  attempts  are  not  always  avowedly  anti-Chris- 
tian. In  the  case  of  a  system  like  that  of  Mrs. 
Eddy,  an  attempt  is  made  to  justify  such  illusion 
from  the  Bible  itself.  The  fundamental  premise 
of  the  gospel  that  God  is  Love  is  forced  to  give  a 
conclusion  which  contradicts  the  generic  experience 
and  convictions  of  the  race.  Since  God  is  Love  no 
misery  can  be  a  reality.  It  is  the  creation  of  the 
"mortal  mind."     If  one   can  down   this   "mortal 


148         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

mind"  by  an  insistence  upon  the  thought  that  God 
who  is  All  is  Love,  misery  will  cease  to  exist.  Therein 
lies  emancipation ! 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  psychologically  it  is 
possible  to  produce  nervous  reaction  by  the  use  of 
such  a  powerful  suggestion  as  the  evangelic  view  of 
God.  Certain  classes  of  cures  wrought  by  Christian 
Science  are  too  numerous  to  be  denied.  But  men 
still  die  and  earthquakes  still  ruin  cities,  and  fires 
still  lick  up  forests.  The  student  of  neurology  in 
any  case  would  be  slow  to  admit  that  the  effect 
produced  by  a  suggestion  of  necessity  guarantees 
the  truth  of  the  suggestion  itself.  How  much  less 
the  philosophy  from  which  the  suggestion  springs! 
That  must  be  established  by  comparing  it  with  the 
other  things  which  we  know.  Why  there  should 
be  a  mortal  mind  capable  of  producing  these  delu- 
sions of  evil  is  just  as  perplexing  as  the  existence  of 
Satan. 

(2)  God  can  be  regarded  as  Father  only  as  He 
is  seen  to  deliver  men  from  a  real  w^orld  of  evil. 
This  deliverance,  too,  must  not  be  something  over 
against  the  world  of  law.  In  some  way  it  must 
be  correlated  with  process.  Else  there  are  two 
Gods:  the  God  of  nature  and  the  God  of  grace. 
So  the   ancient   Gnostics   thought,   and   so   must 


THE  LOVE  OF  THE  GOD  OF  LAW      1 49 

we  think,  unless  that  deliverance  from  evil  which 
alone  can  make  reasonable  the  Fatherliness  of 
God  is  seen  to  be  a  part  of  a  cosmic  order  in 
which  there  is  room  for  both  suffering  and  love. 
That  is  to  say,  we  must  see  that  deliverance  of 
personalities  is  the  final  aim  of  the  very  cosmos 
that  makes  suffering  inevitable. 

(3)  The  only  genuinely  Christian  conception  of 
deliverance  from  physical  evil  is  that  set  by  Jesus 
himself,  viz.  a  spiritual  life  resting  on  the  faith  that    }. 
there  are  greater  values  in  the  universe  than  those    ■ 
of  chemistry  and  physics.     Jesus  himself  was  far-    I 
thest  possible  from  denying  the  existence  of  evil  I 
from  which  God  would  deliver  us.     The  age  was 
indeed  evil  and  would  make  his  disciples  its  victims 
as  surely  as  it  made  him.     He  practiced  no  auto- 
suggestion in  order  to  make  Gethsemane  an  illusion. 
The  despair  of  the  cross  was  as  real  as  the  cross  it- 
self.    There  is  too  much  at  stake  in  the  moral  reahn 
to  risk  training  oneself  to  believe  that  non-existent 
the  reality  of  which  is  witnessed  by  the  totality  of 
human  experience.     If  the  universe  is  not  as  satis- 
factory as  we  should  like  to  have  it,  it  is  the  only 
universe  we  have.     To  lose  the  capacity  to  face  its 
mysteries  with  level  eyes,  is  too  high  a  price  to  pay 
for  regaining  one's  health. 


150         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

3.  The  man  who  is  in  sympathy  with  the  real 
science  of  the  day  will  not  ask  that  the  universe  be 
changed  in  order  that  he  may  escape  sorrow;  or 
that  the  nature  from  which  sin  springs  shall  be 
annihilated  in  order  that  he  may  be  holy;  or  that 
death,  which  seems  so  integral  a  part  of  life,  shall 
be  abolished  in  order  that  he  may  preserve  that 
individuality  which  is  a  man's  greatest  treasure; 
or  that  the  forces  of  social  evolution  shall  be  changed 
in  order  that  there  may  be  established  a  society  that 
shall  be  a  fraternity.  He  knows  that  such  demands 
involve  the  very  structure  of  the  universe  in  which 
he  lives.  The  deliverance  which  he  seeks  is  deliv- 
erance in  accordance  with  the  world  of  law,  a  freedom 
of  soul  that  is  born  of  spiritual  growth  and  mastery. 
The  modern  man  in  his  desire  to  be  saved  can  only 
ask  God  to  enable  him,  by  faith  and  insight  and 
divine  assistance,  to  rise  superior  to  the  impersonal 
elements  of  the  universe,  to  ally  himself  redemp- 
tively  with  the  onward  rush  of  that  universe  as  it 
embodies  the  will  of  immanent  Love. 

And  he  has  abundant  grounds  to  welcome  the 
evangelic  message  of  hope  as  yet  unfulfilled.  That, 
in  the  great  process  due  to  the  operation  of  God's 
will  which  the  ancient  world  described  in  terms  of 
eschatology    and    the    modern    man    expresses    in 


THE    LOVE    OF    THE    GOD    OF    LAW  I51 

terms  of  evolution,  there  is  something  more  than  a 
blind  succession  of  changes  —  that  is  the  quintessence 
of  the  Christian  view  of  the  universe.  Sorrow  is 
the  shadow  of  joy.  The  slow  emergence  of  per- 
sonality from  the  husk  of  nature ;  the  steady  growth 
of  the  individual  as  he  gains  new  spiritual  rights  as 
over  against  physical  forces;  the  sure,  if  sometimes 
woefully  slow,  transformation  of  the  social  body  by 
the  principles  which  have  given  worth  to  the  indi- 
vidual; divine  discontent  with  things  as  they  are 
and  persistent  effort  to  make  things  as  they  should 
be;  all  these  elementary  facts  of  social  history  ar- 
gue the  reasonableness  of  the  faith  in  the  reality  of 
the  good  God  of  Jesus.  If  in  view  of  the  darker 
facts  of  life  a  Christian  cannot  be  a  thoroughgoing 
optimist,  he  has  every  reason  for  being  a  meliorist. 
He  no  longer  fears  the  God  of  Law,  for  he  not  only 
believes  that  the  evils  which  spring  from  nature 
are  the  inseparable  concomitants  of  a  process 
toward  the  better  that  proclaims  the  Father, — that 
as  there  could  be  no  Better  without  a  Worse,  so 
there  is  no  Worse  without  a  Better, — but  he  also 
believes  that  he  can  himself,  as  a  spiritual  person 
strengthened  and  inspired  by  God,  rise  above  the 
natural  order  in  which  change  and  suffering  are 
implicit,  into  the  freedom  of  the  sons  of  God;  into 


152         THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

an  eternal,  not  a  temporal,  order  of  existence ;  out  from 
the  kingdom  of  Nature  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 

In  such  an  assurance,  the  modern  man  finds  science 
an  ally.  Our  physiologists  and  psychologists  are 
already  preaching  something  of  the  same  gospel. 
Fear  rather  than  intellectual  doubt  is  the  great 
enemy  of  humanity  in  their  teaching  as  truly  as  in 
the  teaching  of  Jesus.  If  faith  in  God  revealed  and 
interpreted  by  Jesus  delivers  us  from  the  fear  of 
those  forces  which  seem  so  heartless,  it  is  only 
corroboration  when  our  physiological  psychologists 
tell  us  that  fear  is  a  breeder  of  disease  and  that 
cheerfulness  is  the  source  of  health. 

Further,  both  the  gospel  and  the  scientific  disser- 
tation alike  emphasize  the  supreme  worth  of  per- 
sonality. To  both  alike  the  significance  of  a  man 
lies  not  in  what  he  is  but  in  what  he  is  becoming. 
Treatises  on  economics  are  hardly  more  than  a 
commentary  on  the  teaching  of  Jesus  that  a  man 
can  afford  to  give  everything  in  exchange  for  his 
own  life.  Anthropology  and  the  science  of  edu- 
cation point  unwaveringly  to  the  evolution  of  the 
free  personality.  Civilization  might  almost  be 
described  as  society's  constant  lengthening  of  the 
chains  which  bind  spiritual  personality  so  closely 
to  physical  nature. 


THE    LOVE    OF    THE    GOD    OF    LAW  1 53 

To  know  the  truth  is  indeed  to  be  free.  The 
very  discontent  and  struggle  which  the  gospel  causes ; 
the  very  difficulties  which  beset  the  man  who  at- 
tempts to  shape  his  life  on  the  belief  that  love  rather 
than  force  is  supreme,  are  testimonies  to  the  worth 
of  the  teaching.  For,  strange  as  it  seems,  such 
struggles  bring  peace  and  health  and  joy.  To 
trust  is  to  grow  strong.  To  fear  is  to  grow  weak. 
To  estimate  the  outer  world  as  good  and  yet  not  the 
supreme  good;  to  judge  personality  superior  to  the 
forces  of  nature;  to  dare  lose  one's  life  in  order 
to  save  one's  life,  all  this  is  as  reasonable  as  its  pur- 
suit is  heroic. 

"  Resolve  to  be  thyself;  and  know  that  he 
Who  finds  himself,  loses  his  misery  1 " 

is  the  call  of  a  greater  than  Matthew  Arnold. 

Ill 

I.  Yet,  unless  I  mistake,  it  is  here  that  the  gospel 
meets  its  most  intense  enemy.  There  is  no  middle 
ground  for  an  earnest  man  to  take.  If  he  has  come  to 
distrust  the  essential  gospel  of  the  spiritual  life,  he 
must  become  a  neutral,  unsympathetic  observer  of  the 
world,  or  a  pessimist,  the  terrified  slave  of  physical 
nature.  Nature  and  life  themselves  become  evils. 
Von  Hartmann,  it  is  true,  is  not  popular  in  America, 


154    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

but  the  pessimism  which  he  rationalized  is  by  no 
means  foreign  to  our  experience.  "The  future 
religion,"  he  says  in  substance,  "will  be  one  whose 
substance  is  the  renunciation  of  all  life  in  the  wholly 
blank  and  vague  and  limitless  immensity  which 
knows  nothing  of  itself  and  which  is  so  aberrant 
from  its  fundamental  condition  as  to  produce, 
contrary  to  its  inherent  nature,  conscious  beings  who 
must  suffer  and  wail,  and  agonize  as  long  as  they 
are  conscious."  Could  words  be  in  more  complete 
contrast  to  the  evangelic  proclamation  as  to  the 
goodness  and  love  of  God?  Yet,  stripped  of  the 
peculiar  philosophy  which  lies  back  of  it,  the  pes- 
simism of  von  Hartmann  and  of  Schopenhauer 
before  him,  is  shared  by  many  a  soul  who  looks  out 
upon  the  catastrophies  in  nature  and  the  inequali- 
ties of  our  social  life;  who  knows  in  his  own  ex- 
perience the  bitterness  of  sorrow,  and  who  has  found 
in  every  action  results  incommensurate  with  effort. 
Omar's  distaste  for  the  moral  order  as  well  as 
his  sense  of  the  awfulness  of  the  non-moral  evils 
of  the  world  color  much  of  our   modern   thinking. 

"  Ah  Love!  could  you  and  I  with  Him  conspire 
To  grasp  the  sorry  Scheme  of  things  entire, 
Would  not  we  shatter  it  to  bits  —  and  then 
Remold  it  nearer  to  the  Heart's  Desire?  " 


THE    LOVE    OF    THE    GOD    OF    LAW  155 

Pessimism  springs  not  only  from  a  disbelief  in  a 
good  God;  it  springs  quite  as  truly  from  a  disbelief 
in  the  spiritual  worth  of  man.  The  two  are  in- 
separable. Whoever  distrusts  God  distrusts  man  ; 
and  whoever  distrusts  man,  unless  he  be  inspired  by 
the  faith  of  the  gospel,  comes  to  distrust  God.  The 
outcome  of  such  distrust,  whether  it  be  of  God 
or  of  man,  may  not  immediately  disclose  itself,  but 
if  the  literature  which  unblushingly  discloses  the 
nakedness  of  so  much  of  our  modern  world  is  any 
criterion,  such  results  are  sure  to  emerge. 

What  man  of  us,  looking  out  into  the  confused 
social  order  which  we  have  inherited  and  which  we 
strive  often  so  desperately  to  better  does  not  at 
times  cry  out  with  that  poet  we  once  thought  might 
become  a  prophet :  — 

..."  on,  but  on  does  the  old  earth  steer 
As  if  her  port  she  knew. 
God,  dear  God!    Does  she  know  her  port, 
Though  she  goes  so  far  about? 
-     Or  blind  astray,  does  she  make  her  sport 
To  brazen  and  chance  it  out? 
I  watched  when  her  captains  passed: 
She  were  better  captainless. 
Men  in  the  cabins,  before  the  mast, 
But  some  were  reckless  and  some  aghast, 
And  some  sat  gorged  at  mess." 


156    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

Sometime  or  other  the  most  hopeful  of  us  suffer 
moments  of  pessimism,  and  some  few,  the  specific 
gravity  of  whose  souls  has  been  determined  by  the 
exclusion  of  all  the  brighter  and  more  hopeful  ele- 
ments furnished  by  Christian  faith,  sink  to  its 
depths.  Suicide  itself  seems  a  way  to  good.  "The 
door  stands  open!"  "Death,"  says  Hauptmann, 
in  the  person  of  Michael  Kramer,  "  is  the  mildest 
form  of  life.  The  activities  of  the  great  world  are 
the  shudder ings  of  fever."  And  who  can  ever 
forget  the  gathering  despair  of  Rosmersholm  with 
the  mad  rush  of  the  unhappy  man  and  woman  to 
seek  death  in  the  mill  stream? 

2.  Nor  is  the  case  bettered  when  the  man  who 
has  abandoned  faith  in  God  passes  from  pessimism 
to  an  alleged  superiority  to  morality.  Von  Hart- 
mann  declares  that  he  freed  himself  from  his  Welt- 
schmerz — that  luxurious  sort  of  pessimism  of  which 
Germans  alone  seem  capable  —  by  writing  about 
it.  Thereafter  he  enjoyed  the  undisturbed  serenity 
of  the  philosopher  who  lives  in  the  world  of  thought, 
absorbed  in  observation  even  of  his  own  pain,  and 
expecting  that  men  would  escape  from  the  illusion 
of  hope  only  in  a  far  distant  future.  Nietzsche,  too, 
though  fundamentally  a  preacher  of  what  he  re- 
gards as  a  better  day  to  dawn  when  conventional 


THE  LOVE  OF  THE  GOD  OF  LAW      157 

Christian  ethics  are  replaced  by  a  life  wholly  sub- 
ordinate to  the  Will  to  Power,  refused  to  admit  the 
truth  of  either  optimism  or  pessimism.  To  espouse 
either  he  declares  would  be  to  make  oneself  a  de- 
fender or  a  critic  of  the  God  of  the  theologians  — 
for  which  class  of  thinkers,  it  hardly  needs  to  be 
added,  Nietzsche  has  little  use. 

But  how  far  is  such  indifference  preferable  to 
that  despair  that  can  see  pain  rather  than  happiness 
as  the  outcome  of  the  world-process?  Under  the 
atrophying  influence  of  both,  many  a  modern  man 
has  lost  hope  in  himself,  in  his  universe,  and  in  his 
God.  An  attitude  of  soul  which  deadens  all  idealism 
is  the  chief  ally  of  popular  materialism.  Pessimism 
has  ceased  to  be  an  academic  speculation  and  has 
spread  into  life.  And  there  the  gospel  must  meet  it, 
conquer  it,  and  replace  it  by  trust  in  the  Father  of 
Jesus.  God  the  Creator  can  be  vindicated  when  He 
is  seen  to  be  God  the  Saviour. 

IV 

It  is  here  we  need  that  aspect  of  the  work  of  a 
redeeming  God  the  church  has  embodied  in  its 
doctrine  of  the  atonement.  The  bearing  of  Jesus' 
death  upon  our  assurance  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin 
we  shall  notice  later,  but  that  death  has  here  an 


158         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN    MAN 

equal  meaning.  It  has  come  down  to  us  across  the 
centuries,  not  mere  dogma,  but  a  formula  of  courage 
and  of  optimism.  The  victory  of  this  gentle  life 
over  the  forces  of  evil  and  of  animal  decay  was 
not  accomplished  from  without,  but  from  within. 
His  was  the  triumph  of  the  spiritual  life.  Jesus 
conquered  the  doubt  and  distrust  and  sorrow  upon 
which  the  pessimist  seizes.  And  if  ever  a  man  had 
justification  for  pessimism  it  was  he. 

It  is  a  bitter  thing  to  be  defeated  in  the  conflict 
for  personal  advantage.  Among  the  most  pitiful 
sights  of  life  is  the  man  who  once  succeeded,  but 
who  now  has  failed.  To  meet  such  a  one  whom 
you  have  known  in  former  years  in  all  the  strength 
of  authority  born  of  position  and  of  wealth,  and  find 
him  now  submerged  in  the  consciousness  of  defeat, 
is  to  enter  into  one  of  the  tragedies  of  this  strange 
maelstrom  we  call  civilization.  But  there  is  a  de- 
feat more  bitter  than  that  of  the  man  who  has  suf- 
fered defeat  in  his  struggle  for  wealth,  or  fame,  or 
control  over  human  lives.  It  is  the  defeat  that  over- 
takes a  man  because  he  has  put  self  aside  and  has 
striven  to  help  others;  who  has  dared  believe  hu- 
manity something  better  than  it  turned  out  to  be; 
and  has  striven  to  make  men  realize  their  own 
spiritual  possibilities.     For  such  a  life  to  find  itself 


THE  LOVE  OF  THE  GOD  OF  LAW      1 59 

rejected,    misinterpreted,    abused,    betrayed,    con- 
demned as  criminal,  is  to  strain  faith  to  the  utmost. 
And  Jesus  bore  all  this  and  more.     For  in  one  black 
!  moment  on  the  cross  he  shared  also  in  that  despair    : 
]  which  those  feel  who,  seeing  hope  and  friends  for-   / 
sake  them,  think  God  Himself  unfaithful. 

The  gospel  in  teaching  that  God  is  love  not  only 
faces  this  tragic  aspect  of  life,  but  it  makes  it  the 
basis  of  the  boldest  hope  the  human  mind  has  ever 
reached.  There  have  been  men  who  have  thought 
the  God  of  Law  is  the  God  of  Love  because  they 
were  fortunate.  But  the  gospel  dares  believe  God 
is  love  because  Jesus  was  defeated.  To  it  the 
miseries  of  the  Christian  life  are  but  the  darker  side 
of  the  true  life  process.  It  insists  that  it  is  wiser  to 
act  on  the  conviction  that  love  is  the  divine  life 
and  bear  the  consequent  buffetings  of  outrageous 
fortune,  than  to  sacrifice  that  faith  to  immediate 
success.  The  faith  of  Jesus  grows  contagious.  We 
also  dare  make  the  adventure  of  such  trust  in  God. 
But  Jesus  is  here  not  merely  example  and  influ- 
ence. He  is  revelation.  The  dead  Christ  was  the 
risen  Christ,  set  forth  by  God  to  faith,  in  his  very 
blood,  as  evidence  that  the  God  who  forgives  the 
sinner  is  the  same  God  who  punishes  sin.  To  the 
man  who  believes  in  Jesus,  the  God  of  Law  is  more 


l6o         THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE   MODERN   MAN 

readily  seen  to  be  the  God  of  Love.  The  dead  Christ 
lives.  That  is  the  seal  of  the  evangelic  conviction 
that  the  God  of  Law  is  the  God  of  Love;  for  in  his 
triumph  are  revealed  the  possibilities  of  humanity's 
triumph  as  well.  That  is  the  truth  which  the  Greek 
fathers  saw  so  clearly.  The  self  which,  simply  be- 
cause it  is  human,  must  inherit  the  miseries  born  of 
chemical,  physical,  and  social  forces,  can  also,  if 
only  like  Jesus  it  be  spiritually  at  one  with  the 
God  of  things  as  they  are  to  be,  rise  with  Jesus 
to  the  trust  and  courage  and  freedom  which  are  the 
inheritance  of  the  sons  of  God.  Who  can  separate 
His  sons  from  the  love  of  God  ?  They  have,  with 
Jesus,  found  their  true  life  where  Nature,  red  of 
tooth  and  claw,  can  never  reach  them. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  FORGIVENESS   OF   SIN 

Sin  proposes  a  metaphysical  problem  of  no  small 
difficulty.  Approach  it  as  one  may  it  refuses  to  di- 
vulge its  real  nature  or  quite  to  explain  its  existence 
in  a  God-ruled  universe.  None  the  less,  sin,  like 
its  fellow-mystery,  life,  is  no  stranger  to  the  modern 
man.  A  sense  of  its  terrible  power  is  another 
prompting  to  that  cry  for  help  which  is  the  heart  of 
all  healthy  religion.  To  minimize  sin  is  to  give  the 
lie  to  the  most  ordinary  experience  of  life.  We  do 
not  need  to  define  it  in  order  to  recognize  it;  we 
do  not  need  to  know  its  origin  in  order  to  pray  for 
deliverance  from  its  power. 

I 

I.  Sin  to  Jesus  was  a  terrible  reality,  not  a  mere 
negation.  He  had  no  quarrel  with  ceremonials. 
He  came  not  to  destroy  the  law,  and  with  true  con- 
structive spirit  he  cautioned  his  followers  from  a 
revolutionary  break  with  their  national  religion. 
But  he  was  a  deadly  enemy  of  that  tendency  only 

M  l6l 


1 62    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

too  common  among  Pharisaical  teachers  of  all  ages 
to  narrow  sin  to  illegality.  From  the  point  of  view 
of  the  Pharisees  Jesus  was  hopeless.  He  shattered 
by  word  and  precept  all  that  carefully  developed 
exposition  of  statutory  righteousness  which  was  the 
glory  of  the  schools.  His  violation  of  the  Sabbath 
regulations  of  the  rabbis  was  constant  and  open. 
He  scorned  that  minute  conscientiousness  which 
could  tithe  mint  and  annis  and  cummin  and  make 
ceremonial  hand-washing  before  meals  a  matter  of 
supreme  religious  importance.  He  rejected  fasting 
as  an  offset  for  wrongdoing.  Instead  of  the  exces- 
sive religiosity  and  minute  punctiliousness  of  formal 
ethics  he  emphasized  those  states  and  acts  which  the 
morality  of  Pharisaism  did  not  deny  but  neglected. 
He  laid  down  as  a  fundamental  principle  that  it  is 
the  life  which  acts  and  the  life  which  is  bad  or  good. 
Text-books  of  morality  have  time  and  again  listed 
deeds  which  are  wrong  in  themselves.  Jesus  goes 
deeper.  With  him  righteousness  is  not  statutory 
but  hygienic.  A  man  may  become  so  thoroughly 
degenerate  as  to  be  morally  hopeless;  he  may  get 
into  the  grip  of  an  eternal  sin  and  reach  the  place 
where  he  mistakes  God's  acts  for  those  of  Satan, 
goodness  for  badness.  For  a  personality  so  de- 
generate forgiveness  is  impossible. 


\ 


THE    FORGIVENESS    OF    SIN  1 63 

Any  attempt  at  definition  which  seeks  to  present 
Jesus'  thought  of  sin  falls  short  of  what  we  instinc- 
tively feel  is  his  real  estimate.  One  might  as  well  try  to 
define  life  and  death.  If  we  say  that  his  idea  of  sin  is 
that  of  conduct  not  controlled  by  love,  we  are  not  far 
from  the  truth,  for  sin  with  Jesus  is  essentially  anti- 
social ;  but  such  a  formula  seems  too  atomistic  and 
ineffective  compared  with  his  own  vital  analysis.  We 
might  say  that  he  teacher  that  sin  is  a  quality  of  the 
soul  which  leads  to  acts  which  benefit  oneself  at  the 
I  cost  of  somebody  else ;  that  also  is  true,  but  it  stirs 
'a  response  which  is  hardly  more  self-condemnatory 
than  that  roused  by  the  words  of  Epictetus.  We 
might  say  that  sin  with  Jesus  is  that  state  of  the  soul 
which  expresses  itself  in  acts  which  are  injurious  to 
personality,  his  or  another's,  and  indicate  that  a  man 
is  unlike  and  hostile  to  a  fatherly  God.  And  here  in 
the  religious  field  we  come  closest  to  Jesus'  thought. 
Out  from  such  a  soul  there  stream  individual  and 
social  ill  —  impurity  and  selfishness,  anger  and  re- 
venge, insincerity  and  pride.  These  are  no  abstract 
qualities.  Each  one  of  them  is  the  expression  of  per- 
verted life.  Any  one  of  them  sets  a  man  against  not 
only  his  fellows  but  against  his  God.  They  all  deny 
that  the  Spiritual  Life  whose  center  is  Love  is  the 
supreme  force  in  the  universe.     Therefore  it  was  not 


1 64    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

merely  because  a  man  caused  suffering  to  others  that 
Jesus  so  passionately  warned  men  against  that  which 
the  moral  sentiment  abhors.  With  him  sin  not  only 
resulted  in  injury  to  others;  by  its  very  nature  it 
put  the  man  himself  out  of  sympathy  with,  nay  in 
opposition  to,  God.  And  this  opposition,  like  all 
anarchy  and  rebellion,  he  knew  must  bring  suffering. 
2.  Paul  expresses  this  thought  more  elaborately. 
He  sees  in  a  man  two  warring  forces,  the  spirit  and  the 
flesh  —  the  inner  man  and  the  outer  man.  By  this 
he  does  not  mean  to  oppose  a  man's  body  to  his  soul, 
for  Paul  never  would  have  insisted  that  the  bodily 
impulses  were  wrong  in  themselves.  He  did  not 
agree  with  those  philosophers  of  his  day  who  believed 
\  that  matter  was  inherently  bad.  What  he  really 
means  by  flesh  is  those  impulses  which  we  share  with 
the  beasts.  In  themselves  they  are  neither  good  nor 
bad.  They  constantly  prompt  to  action,  but  it  is 
only  as  they  are  made  supreme  or  as  they  are  mis- 
used that  they  become  sinful.  All  of  them  the 
Christian  ought  to  make  thoroughly  secondary  and 
to  use  legitimately.  Sensuality,  the  desire  to  suc- 
ceed at  the  cost  of  other  people,  quarrelsomeness, 
perverted  religious  instincts  —  all  these  are  bad, 
because  they  are  the  persuasions  of  animal  im- 
pulses and  are  contrary  to  and  tend  to  enslave  a 


THE    FORGIVENESS    OF    SIN  1 65 

man's  spiritual  nature  and  make  him  less  like 
God.  That,  according  to  Paul,  is  exactly  the  situ- 
ation of  the  unforgiven  man.  He  has  yielded  to 
the  backward  pull.  The  spirit  which  is  in  the 
image  of  God,  in  that  it  can  love  and  sacrifice 
and  hope  and  believe  and  serve,  has  prostituted 
itself  to  the  lower  self,  which  hates  and  lusts  and 
lies  and  fights  like  the  beasts.  Personality  itself  is 
injured.  And  such  subjection,  unless  it  be  broken, 
culminates  in  the  experience  of  what  was  to  Paul 
the  summary  of  terror,  *'the  wrath  of  God." 

3.  The  modern  man  with  a  belief  in  evolution 
that  is  something  more  than  purposeless  genetic 
change  cannot  do  better  than  to  close  with  this  con- 
ception of  sin.  For  sin,  in  that  it  leads  to  unlikeness 
with  the  God  of  Love,  emerges  clearly  enough  in  the 
struggle  of  a  lower  self  to  get  control  of  the  spiritual 
personality  which  would  be  loving  like  God.  It  is  the 
backward  pull  that  makes  Godlikeness  so  difficult. 
The  watchword  of  the  lower  self  is  life  at  the  expense 
of  others ;  the  watchword  of  the  higher  self  is  life  in 
service  for  others.  The  struggle  between  those  two 
lives  is  the  meaning  of  the  contrast  between  the  two 
Ages,  and  is  concretely  expressed  in  that  experience  of 
Jesus  known  as  the  Temptation.  Cast  in  the  form 
of  dramatic  dialogue  it  is  really  an  exposition  of 


1 66         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

that  typical  moral  struggle  which,  present  in  every 
man,  reached  its  highest  expression  in  Jesus.  He 
alone  among  all  men  perfectly  represented  the  Spirit- 
ual Life,  but  hke  every  other  man  he  felt  the  struggle 
of  that  lower  self  which  comes  over  from  the  centuries 
of  development,  and  would  check  the  growth  of  that 
higher  self  which  is  farthest  from  the  animal  and 
nearest  to  God.  There  was  no  harm  in  being  hun- 
gry, but  when  hunger  would  direct  messianic  power 
it  was  temptation.  There  was  no  sin  in  seeking  to 
win  a  world ;  it  became  temptation  to  sin  only  when 
selfish  ambition  made  messianic  power  its  subject. 
There  was  no  sin  in  that  faith  which  could  trust  God 
to  bear  one  up  if  one  leaped  from  the  roof  of  the 
portico;  it  was  temptation  to  sin  only  when  an 
irrational  faith  would  tempt  divine  love. 

Temptation  comes,  as  we  have  said,  when  an  im- 
perfect good  of  the  past  surviving  in  oneself  would 
set  up  ideals  for  a  growing  spiritual  life.  In  their 
origin  such  survivals  may  be  neither  good  nor  evil. 
In  a  true  sense  they  lie  outside  the  moral  sphere. 
Sin  appears  only  when  personality  is  violated  or  pros- 
tituted to  the  service  of  that  which  is  less  personal  or 
impersonal.  Only  as  they  serve  to  subject  better, 
that  is,  the  more  Godlike  elements  of  man's  being,  are 
physical  impulses  an  occasion  of  sin.     By  making 


THE   FORGIVENESS   OF    SIN  1 67 

such  survivals  paramount  man  transforms  this  non- 
moral  tendency  into  sin  just  as  he  makes  originally 
harmless  germs  pathogenic.  He  perverts  person- 
ality itself  by  destroying  the  perspective  of  its 
values. 

Those  impulses,  complete  obedience  to  which  is 
sinfulness,  and  a  voluntary  action  in  accordance  with 
which  as  supreme  is  a  sin,  will  be  found  to  be  ex- 
pressions of  the  two  great  elements  of  life  —  the  im- 
pulse to  perpetuate  itself  in  descendants  and  the 
impulse  to  preserve  itself  from  destruction.  True,  in 
such  elemental  impulses  lies  in  no  small  way  the  ex- 
planation of  the  progress  through  which  life  on  this 
globe  has  passed.  As  we  look  back  over  the  past  we 
cannot  regret  the  existence  of  the  impulses  to  propa- 
gate and  to  preserve  life.  Without  the  first,  living 
beings  would  have  long  since  perished  from  the  earth. 
Without  the  second,  some  weak  organism .  or  some 
social  institution  ill  adapted  to  progress  might  have 
determined  the  course  of  evolution.  But  out  from 
the  first  impulse,  if  only  it  be  made  supreme  in  a  man, 
springs  sensuahty  with  its  attendant  vices;  and  out 
from  the  second,  if  it  be  treated  as  supreme,  springs 
human  selfishness  and  that  mad  competition  which 
results  not  in  the  survival  of  the  spiritually  fittest, 
but  in  the  pitiless  victory  of  the  strongest.     To  make 


1 68    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

either  of  these  two  exclusively  vital  impulses  domi- 
nant in  conduct  is  to  reduce  life  to  the  standard 
of  the  animal.  To  make  any  of  their  more  primitive 
social  expressions  dominant  is  to  revert  to  savagery. 
A  sin  as  distinct  from  sin  may  be  described  as  volun- 
tary action  opposed  to  the  divine  purpose  as  seen  in 
the  steady  progress  of  life  up  from  the  vegetable  into 
the  animal  and  so  out  into  the  social  and  ever  more 
personal  realm.  Its  content  is  selfishness.  To  com- 
mit it  is  to  set  oneself  against  a  cosmic  God.  The 
grosser  sins  are,  of  course,  evidently  cases  of  voluntary 
reversions  to  lower  types.  A  man  who  is  a  hypocrite 
is  voluntarily  following  the  instinct  to  deceive  others 
in  the  interest  of  benefiting  himself,  and  is  exalting 
an  impulse  which,  however  necessary  for  the  animal, 
is  utterly  out  of  place  in  a  man  who  must  live  with  his 
fellows.  Nor  are  other  illustrations  hard  to  find. 
Is  not  the  thief  reproducing  in  himself  qualities  of  the 
animal  who  prowls  by  night  ?  Is  not  the  man  who 
sinks  his  individual  responsibility  for  wrongdoing  in 
corporations  like  a  wolf  that  runs  with  the  pack? 
Did  not  Paul  rightly  characterize  the  desire  of  the 
Corinthian  Christians  to  quarrel  and  form  rival  theo- 
logical parties  as  "carnal"? 

The  more  refined  sin  becomes  the  greater  may  be  its 
danger.      The  world  abounds  in  thieves,  liars,  and 


THE    FORGIVENESS   OF    SIN  169 

adulterers,  but  it  is  not  clear  that  they  are  the  worst 
sort  of  sinners.  As  civilization  develops  sin  grows 
corporate.  We  sin  socially  by  violating  social  rather 
than  individualistic  personal  relations.  Individually 
a  sinner  may  be  kindly  and  pure  and  honest.  There 
is  many  a  theater  manager  growing  rich  by  pander- 
ing to  sexual  excitement  who  is  a  faithful  husband. 
There  is  many  a  gambler  who  is  never  charged  with 
cheating.  There  are  many  directors  and  stockholders 
of  corporations  who  are  exemplary  in  their  indi- 
vidual relations,  but  who  in  their  corporate  capacity 
do  not  hesitate  to  connive  at  efforts  to  bribe  legisla- 
tures, adulterate  foods,  unscrupulously  crush  out 
competitors,  destroy  family  life  by  subsidizing 
saloons,  corrupt  public  opinion  by  distorting  news, 
induce  unsuspecting  investors  to  buy  worthless 
stock,  crush  out  the  lives  of  children  in  factories, 
and  underpay  women  employees  in  their  stores. 
Such  men  —  and  some  women  —  are  tempted  to 
protect  themselves  by  retreating  behind  the  theory 
that  such  matters  belong  to  the  realm  of  business 
rather  than  to  that  of  ethics.  But  they  cannot 
thereby  escape.  The  God  who  is  working  in  human 
society  will  not  be  deceived  by  charters,  or  bought 
off  by  dividends. 
4.  Here  we  face  three  alarming  facts:   Whatever 


170         THE   GOSPEL   AND    THE   MODERN   MAN 

theory  as  to  the  origin  of  sin  we  may  accept,  the  great 
fact  cannot  be  overlooked  that,  just  because  as  human 
beings  we  are  a  mass  of  recapitulated  impulses  and 
social  habits,  we  advance  with  effort,  we  degenerate 
with  ease.  Here  we  face  not  a  mere  aggregation  of 
sinful  acts,  but  a  common  tendency  innate  in  our 
very  humanity,  the  ''original"  sin  of  the  Latin 
fathers.  As  far  back  as  we  can  trace  it  —  and  Paul 
acutely  traced  it  to  Adam  —  we  find  this  ease  of  re- 
version generically  in  the  race.  Nay,  it  increases 
as  habits  grow  socialized.  We  may  call  it  bias, 
we  may  split  metaphysical  hairs  as  to  our  responsibil- 
ity for  it,  but  the  fact  remains.  We  may  endeavor  to 
gloss  it  over  by  some  contradictions  between  deter- 
minism and  free-will ;  we  may  cry  out  against  it  most 
bitterly;  but  the  fact  of  inherited  tendencies  that 
make  easy  the  reversion  to  a  lower  type  both  in  indi- 
vidual and  society  refutes  all  our  denials.  Sin  is  thus 
more  than  individual  wrongdoing.  It  involves  that 
progress  in  the  social  person  of  which  we  now  make 
so  much.  Once  slavery  was  progress.  Now  it  is 
sinful.  Once  concubinage  was  legal.  Now,  in 
Christian  states,  it  is  illegal.  To  revert  to  either  —  or 
many  another  practice  justified  by  a  distant  or  even  a 
recent  past  —  would  be  a  sin.  Yet  who  but  realizes 
that  such  an  act  would  be  easier  than  to  live  absolutely 


THE   FORGIVENESS   OF    SIN  171 

according  to  modern  law  —  to  say  nothing  about 
conforming  to  the  supreme  ideals  of  Jesus  ? 

A  second  fact  is  here  evident.  Society  itself  has  to 
no  small  extent  become  a  minister  of  sin.  Personal 
wrongdoing  lives  on  in  its  social  results,  institutional 
or  otherwise.  Lives  subject  to  the  reversionary 
influence  find  themselves  from  childhood  in  touch 
with  a  social  mind  that  suggests  imitation  of  its  evil 
as  well  as  of  its  better  elements.  With  our  knowledge 
of  the  self  and  of  society  we  see  that  Augustine  and 
Pelagius  were  both  right.  The  backward  pull  is  in 
our  nature,  and  social  relations  incite  us  to  an  imitation 
of  its  expression  in  society.  Individual  and  society 
alike  must  be  regenerate  if  sin  is  to  be  removed  from 
ourselves  and  our  world. 

The  third  fact  is  even  more  serious.  Despite  all 
warnings  a^  to  results,  the  supremacy  of  the  lower  self 
brings  a  certain  sort  of  pleasure.  That  is  one  reason 
why  sin  is  so  attractive.  A  man  does  not  steal  be- 
cause he  feels  that  it  is  wicked  to  steal,  but  because 
he  gets  hold  of  property.  A  man  does  not  lie  be- 
cause he  thinks  it  is  wicked  to  lie,  but  because  by 
lying  he  in  some  way  gets  an  advantage  over  some 
one  else.  A  man  does  not  get  drunk  because  he 
knows  it  is  wrong  to  drink,  but  because  of  the  satis- 
faction he  has  in  an  orgy.     Men  do  not  organize  the 


172         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

white  slave  traffic  in  order  to  bring  misery  upon  inno- 
cent, credulous  girls,  but  because  there  is  a  livelihood 
in  supplying  vicious  wants.  Men  and  corporation^ 
do  not  break  laws  because  they  like  lawlessness,  but 
because  there  are  material  advantages  in  lawlessness. 
Sin  is  so  deeply  intrenched  in  our  social  life  as  to  be  all 
but  ineradicable.    And  yet  we  can  be  saved  from  it. 

II 

I.  The  first  step  in  the  gospel's  method  of  saving 
men  from  sin  is  to  arouse  them  to  the  danger  of  yield- 
ing to  this  powerful  tendency.  Our  modern  life 
needs  a  call  to  moral  discontent.  We  are  suffering 
from  indifference  to  everything  except  creature  com- 
forts. We  are  too  complacent,  too  ready  to  think 
that  we  are  good  because  we  are  prosperous.  We 
may  not  be  as  conceited  as  the  Pharisee,  but  most  of 
us  cannot  understand  the  humility  of  the  publican. 
Much  of  the  appeal  made  to-day  in  the  more  pro- 
gressive pulpits  overlooks  the  fact  that  multitudes  of 
people  are  bad.  God  is  a  Father,  we  are  told,  and 
men  should  come  to  him  because  he  is  loving.  That 
is  true ;  but  no  religion  has  ever  long  gripped  human- 
ity that  has  deceived  itself  into  believing  that  men  are 
better  than  they  are.  Even  the  Christian  Scientist 
has  his  "mortal  mind."     It  is  no  safer  to  trifle  with 


THE   FORGIVENESS    OF    SIN  1 73 

disease  of  the  soul  than  with  disease  of  the  body,  but 
it  is  hard  to  make  men  believe  that  they  really  need  a 
'spiritual  physician.     They  would  rather  be  amused. 

The  great  difficulty  confronting  the  attempt  to  re- 
duce Christianity  to  a  mere  philosophy  of  values  lies 
in  the  fact  that  every  such  attempt  is  liable  to  pre- 
suppose an  awakened  Christian  experience.  In  the 
long  run  the  test  of  any  religion  will  be  its  capacity 
to  arouse  repentance  and  religious  consecration. 
It  is  one  thing  for  a  theology  to  nurture  a  life  already 
Christian ;  it  it  is  quite  another  to  beget  that  Chris- 
tian life.  A  church  must  be  something  more  than  a 
theological  orphanage.  It  must  have  its  own  spirit- 
ual children.  It  is  a  sense  of  the  reality  of  sin  that 
alone  can  make  of  the  gospel  anything  more  than 
a  graduate  lecture  course  in  Christian  ethics.  A 
religious  message  that  cannot  stir  sinners  to  repent- 
ance is  not  the  gospel  of  the  New  Testament. 

That  is  not  to  say  that  a  man  must  wait  until  he  is 
very  wicked  before  he  comes  to  God.  It  is  not  to  say 
that  the  pulpit  should  imitate  Jonathan  Edwards 
and  preach  on  "Sinners  in  .the  Hands  of  an  Angry 
God."  It  is  not  to  say  that  children  who  have  grown 
up  under  the  beneficent  influence  of  Christian  fami- 
lies should  be  forced  to  confess  a  guilt  of  which  they 
are  not  conscious.     It  is  still  farther  from  saying  that 


174         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

we  should  not  so  educate  our  children  that  as  they 
grow  in  stature  they  shall  also  grow  in  moral  sensitive- 
ness and  in  favor  with  God.  But  it  is  to  say  that  we 
can  no  more  overlook  the  fact  of  sin  than  we  can 
overlook  the  fact  of  tuberculosis.  Whether  those 
whom  we  w^ould  bring  to  God  are  children  or  adults 
the  gospel  should  come  as  a  message  of  salvation. 
But  you  cannot  get  people,  young  or  old,  to  want 
to  be  saved  unless  they  are  convinced  that  there  is 
something  to  be  saved  from. 

Now  it  is  no  more  pleasurable  to-day  to  convince 
persons  of  the  truth  of  a  moral  diagnosis  than  it  was  to 
convince  their  fathers.  Prophets  have  always  found 
that  their  physical  comfort  decreased  in  proportion 
as  they  increased  their  hearers'  moral  discomfort.  In 
many  cases  wrongdoing  seems  to  guarantee  prosperity. 
The  Psalmist  had  his  faith  shaken  by  this  fact  long 
ago.  He  saw  the  wicked  prosperous  and  possessing 
the  good  things  of  life,  while  the  righteous  seemed 
to  be  exceedingly  unfortunate.  He  found  his  faith, 
as  he  said,  ready  to  stagger.  His  disquietude  has 
persisted.  Why  do  good  men  fail  in  business  while 
unscrupulous  promoters  grow  rich?  Why  do  bad 
men  so  enjoy  themselves? 

Yet,  just  because  of  these  stumblingblocks,  men 
must  be  made  to  see  the  danger  of  this  reversal 


THE    FORGIVENESS    OF    SIN  1 75 

of  values.  The  mere  fact  of  pleasure  in  sin  must  be 
shown  to  be  an  evidence  of  moral  disease  just  as 
excessive  appetite  is  an  evidence  of  dyspepsia. 
Men  and  children  alike  must  be  made  to  feel  that  to 
yield  to  unworthy  impulses,  despite  the  ease  and  the 
pleasureof  such  yielding,  is  dangerous  and  a  guaran- 
tee of  suffering  as  truly  as  disease  is  a  guarantee  of 
suffering. 

2.  Sin,  as  Jesus  and  Paul  and  the  prophets  taught, 
is  evidently  something  more  than  wrongdoing.  It  is 
a  violation  of  the  will  of  God.  It  is  an  attack  upon 
the  God  of  the  universe.  That  can  mean  no  other 
outcome  than  suffering.  Sin  comes  in  when  men 
refuse  to  go  on  with  a  self -revealing  God  and  seek  to 
make  any  stage  of  that  process-revelation  final. 
They  oppose  the  God  who  wills  that  the  universe 
and  humanity  shall  become,  not  merely  he. 

Some  sins  do  riot  involve  an  appreciable  injury 
to  others.  The  spirit  of  rebellion  against  God,  the 
hatred  of  goodness,  blasphemy  and  pride,  may  not 
directly  result  in  wrongdoing  to  our  fellow  men,  but 
they  are  sins  nevertheless,  for  they  are  a  revolt 
against  God's  will  as  seen  both  in  Jesus  and  in  the 
nature  of  things.  There  could  be  wrongdoing  if  there 
were  no  God  in  the  universe,  and  it  would  cause 
suffering;   but  it  is  hard  to  see  how  we  could  then 


176         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

believe  that  suffering  would  necessarily  extend  to  the 
wrongdoer  himself.  But  for  the  man  who  believes 
in  God  there  is  no  such  uncertainty.  A  man  may 
evade  the  laws  made  by  legislatures,  but  he  can  no 
more  evade  the  will  of  God  in  the  realm  of  morals 
than  he  can  deceive  the  law  of  gravitation.  The 
same  immanent  Spirit  that  makes  it  certain  that  a 
man  who  jumps  off  a  cliff  will  be  dashed  to  pieces 
makes  it  just  as  certain  that  the  soul  that  sins  shall 
suffer.  We  may  wish  that  God  was  more  good- 
natured  ;  we  may  even  sometimes  succeed  in  persuad- 
ing ourselves  that  He  is;  but  such  flaccid  optimism 
no  more  affects  the  nature  of  things  than  it  affects 
the  laws  of  climate  or  of  chemical  combinations.  A 
terrible  God  is  this  God  of  Love,  immanent  in  social 
process. 

3.  But  how  are  men  to  be  convinced  that  such 
future  suffering  is  sure  ?  Is  not  God  good  ?  Will  the 
Father  punish  His  children  for  their  mistakes  and 
their  yielding  to  temptation  ? 

There  are  two  replies  that  can  be  made  to  this 
question.  In  the  first  place  we  know  something  of 
how  a  loving  God  works.  The  man  who  cuts  off  his 
arm  never  sees  it  grow  again.  The  child  who  plays 
with  fire  is  burned.  Shall  God  be  any  less  a  God  of 
Law  in  the  moral  world  ?   The  God  who  has  so  made 


THE    FORGIVENESS   OF   SIN  1 77 

humanity  that  the  drunkard  has  delirium  tremens 
is  the  same  God  who  speaks  through  the  lawgiver  and 
the  prophet  and  Christ,  warning  men  of  the  outcome 
of  sin  in  their  spiritual  selves.  One  can  even  see 
His  punitive  will  in  the  inevitableness  of  suffering 
from  sin  in  ordinary  experience.  Dishonesty  for  a 
time  seems  to  be  advantageous,  but  sooner  or  later 
the  God  of  Law  makes  the  wrath  of  men  to  praise 
him,  and  the  thief,  be  he  ever  so  respectable  in  his 
thieving,  pays  the  penalty  of  his  crime.  The  past  few 
years,  with  their  record  of  bankruptcy  and  suicide, 
have  shown  that  God  is  still  in  history  and  that  men 
cannot  trifle  with  the  eternal  laws  of  righteousness. 

So  long  as  the  God  of  process  has  not  abdicated,  we 
must  believe,  also,  that  death  transforms  sin  into  suf- 
fering. The  terrible  pictures  of  the  Judgment  Day 
and  hell  have  reality  back  of  them.  The  loss  of  the 
body  in  itself  is  as  truly  punishment  for  those  who 
have  "lived  to  the  flesh"  as  would  be  the  loss  of  a 
hand  to  a  pianist.  All  that  we  know  of  human  na- 
ture argues  that  death  makes  a  man  neither  better 
nor  worse ;  it  simply  introduces  a  new  mode  of  exist- 
ence. And  that  new  existence  will  be  full  of  joy 
or  misery  according  to  the  readiness  of  the  soul  to 
live  in  it.  A  man  thrown  into  mid-ocean  drow^ns. 
A  bad  man  in  the  spiritual  world  will  be  in  misery. 

N 


178         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

It  cannot  be  otherwise.  God  is  not  mocked.  What 
a  man  sows  he  reaps. 

In  the  second  place  the  gospel  would  insist  that 
there  is  only  one  unforgivable  sin;  the  living  as  if 
love  were  not  supreme.  Such  a  living,  as  Jesus 
warned  the  Pharisees,  makes  men  see  God  only  as 
Satan ;  refuses  to  forgive  enemies;  fights  and  maligns 
the  representatives  of  love.  That  is  the  blasphemy 
against  the  Holy  Ghost. 

To  describe  God  as  love  is  to  herald  the  inevitable 
defeat  of  every  man  who  is  not  loving.  For  it  is 
God  who  is  love.  And  can  a  man  win  against  God  ? 
Obscurant  definitions  here  will  not  avail.  If  the 
process  in  which  we  are  involved  is  dominated  by 
love,  then  he  who  is  not  loving  must  bear  the 
brunt  of  the  process  itself. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  modem  thought  is  re- 
moving the  punitive  God  from  His  universe.  It 
seems  to  me,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  is  bringing  that 
God  into  the  universe  and  even  more  into  human  life. 
The  God  that  the  scientific  investigator  compels  us 
to  accept  is  more  a  God  to  be  feared  than  even  the 
Jehovah  of  the  prophets.  To  be  sure,  for  the  eye  of 
faith  there  is  love  in  the  universe,  but  it  is  no  wonder 
that  men  who  look  simply  at  the  darker  side  of  the 
reign  of  law  grow  pessimistic.     It  is  a  fearful  thing  for 


THE    FORGIVENESS   OF    SIN  1 79 

an  unloving  man  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  a  loving  God. 
That  sounds  like  a  paradox,  but  it  is  more:  it  is  a 
reading  of  the  universe. 

4.  The  man  who  is  not  susceptible  to  fear  can  re- 
spond to  the  gospel's  appeal  to  his  shame.  Whose 
conscience  does  not  condemn  him  as  he  faces  the 
Master  ?  However  unsatisfactory  may  be  some  forms 
at  least  of  the  so-called  moral  influence  of  the  atone- 
ment, no  man  can  deny  the  appeal  which  the  suffering 
Christ  makes  to  the  morally  sensitive  soul.  Recall 
Bernard  and  Francis.  The  picture  of  a  Christ  who, 
although  he  had  done  no  evil,  found  himself  the  vic- 
tim of  sin  is  a  perennial  challenge  to  the  man  who 
would  belittle  the  significance  of  sin.  For  he  can 
see  that  the  motives  which  led  the  authorities  of 
Judea  to  take  so  pure  and  noble  a  life  as  Jesus'  were 
not  peculiar  to  Judea.  They  are  as  old  and  as  new 
as  humanity  itself.     Bad  men  hate  loving  men. 

Nor  are  these  the  only  appeals  of  Jesus.  He  stirs 
humanity.  Children  as  well  as  men  find  their  moral 
sense  quickened  in  the  presence  of  af  hero  and  a  mar- 
tyr. And  such  a  response  of  the  spiritual  self  is  the 
source  of  moral  convalescence  in  the  same  proportion 
as  it  springs  from  even  an  unformulated  recognition 
of  the  worth  of  the  principles  for  which  the  hero  or 
martyr  stood.     Perhaps  the  most  quickening  appeal 


l8o         THE    GOSPEL    AND   THE    MODERN    MAN 

that  the  gospel  can  make  to  the  modem  man  —  and 
to  the  modern  adolescent  —  with  his  conventional 
morality,  is  the  Christ  who  bore  testimony  to  the 
dangers  of  sin  by  preferring  the  dangers  of  righteous- 
ness. Even  if  he  were  an  unhistorical  picture  he 
would  still  have  its  power  to  stir  the  depths  of  the 
moral  life.  How  much  mightier  will  he  be  as  he  is 
seen  to  be  more  than  allegory  or  symbol ! 

Ill 

I.  This  deliverance  from  sin  and  its  consequences 
promised  by  the  gospel  does  not  presuppose  that  a 
man  shall  be  immediately  morally  perfect.  Deliver- 
ance consists  in  evoking  a  Godlike  spiritual  life  in  a 
sinful  man.  That  is  the  difficult  paradox  for  every 
man  who  has  rightly  read  his  own  nature,  and  which 
to  the  Jewish  Christian  seemed  dangerously  near  the 
violation  of  the  fundamental  law  of  God  Himself. 
The  faith  of  the  early  Jewish  Christians  who  made 
such  trouble  for  Paul  among  the  early  churches  of 
Galatia  is  entirely  intelligible.  They  believed  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ  and  that  such  faith  would  carry 
them  into  the  messianic  kingdom  which  he  was  to  es- 
tablish, saved  from  death  and  from  the  condemnation 
of  the  Judgment  Day.  But  they  believed  that  such 
blessing  was  possible  only  for  those  who  were  Jews, 


THE    FORGIVENESS   OF    SIN  l8l 

and  therefore  they  endeavored  both  scrupulously 
and  unscrupulously  to  induce  Gentile  Christians  to 
perform  the  works  of  the  law.  True,  after  the 
Apostolic  conference  at  Jerusalem  they  were  ready  to 
reduce  the  demands  for  ritual  observance  to  a  mini- 
mum, but  there  still  lay  in  the  heart  of  the  Judaistic 
Christian  the  belief  that  if  one  were  to  gain  the 
blessing  promised  to  Abraham  he  must  be  a  member 
of  the  Jewish  community. 

Over  against  this  was  the  insistence  of  Paul  upon 
justification,  or,  as  it  might  be  more  accurately  called, 
acquittal  through  faith.  Paul's  acute  mind  rejected 
any  conception  of  deliverance  from  sin  that  involved 
the  counting  of  atomistic  deeds  and  the  striking  of  a 
balance.  Human  nature  itself  was  infected.  Faith 
in  Jesus  involved  a  voluntary  attitude  toward  God  the 
reverse  of  that  which  is  exhibited  in  following  the 
tendency  away  from  God.  Paul  saw  only  too  well 
that  the  tendency  to  make  "flesh"  supreme  which 
lay  in  man's  nature  in  itself  exposed  a  man  to  the 
penalty  of  a  broken  law.  It  could  make  no  difference 
whether  his  violations  were  many  or  few.  The  man 
who  violated  the  law  at  a  single  point  had  actually 
broken  the  law  and  was  liable  to  punishment.  He 
was  not  responsible  for  the  tendency,  but  unaided  by 
God  he  would  yield  to  its  power.     However  theoreti- 


l82         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

cally  he  might  be  able  to  keep  the  law  of  God  and  his 
own  conscience,  practically  he  was  guilty.  God  must 
pardon  if  he  were  to  be  saved  from  punishment. 

2.  So  simple  and  consistent  a  scheme  is  entirely 
intelligible  to  the  modem  man,  but  he  cannot  help 
querying  what  there  is  in  it  for  his  own  moral  and  reli- 
gious life.  His  fundamental  conception  of  the  universe 
makes  it  difficult  for  him  to  respond  to  the  forensic 
conception  of  God  as  a  monarch  who  establishes  days 
of  trial  and  passes  individual  sentences  upon  millions 
of  lives.  His  idea  of  law  makes  it  hard  for  him  to 
think  of  a  remitted  penalty  in  a  moral  world,  where 
relations  are  genetic  and  only  figuratively  to  be  con- 
ceived of  in  terms  of  the  law  court  and  a  king.  Moral 
questions,  like  all  other  problems  of  the  universe,  can 
be  thought  of  literally  by  the  modern  man  only 
in  the  terms  of  law,  of  organism,  and  environment. 

Has,  then,  this  aspect  of  the  gospel  no  meaning  for 
him  ?  And  is  it,  precisely  understood,  no  part  of  the 
modem  preacher's  message  ?  We  cannot  so  believe. 
An  evil  act  certainly  implies  an  evil  nature,  and  the 
results  described  as  Judgment  Day  and  penalty  are 
among  the  fundamental  facts  of  the  modem  man.  As 
his  equivalent  of  the  judgment  he  has  the  postponed 
effects  of  the  working  of  the  causes  in  the  moral  world ; 
and  of  the  penalty,  the  suffering  of  the  degenerate, 


THE   FORGIVENESS   OF    SIN  l8 


o 


Nor  is  this  all.  The  modern  man  can  accept  sin- 
cerely the  great  truth  taught  by  Jesus  and  his  disciples 
that  God  must  be  the  Saviour  if  the  man  is  to  be  saved. 
In  the  face  of  to-day's  psychology  and  sociology  who 
would  dare  say  the  unaided  individual  is  ever  able 
to  prevent  the  outworkings  of  the  forces  of  evil? 
Every  life  has  its  unearned  increment  of  character 
born  of  its  social  situation.  It  would  have  been 
better  or  worse  had  it  not  been  swept  on  by  its  en- 
vironments. The  very  insistence  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment upon  the  divine  element  in  salvation  makes  it 
the  easier  for  the  modern  man  to  welcome  and  to 
understand.  The  past  is  irrevocable  except  as  its 
consequences  are  overcome  by  the  very  powers  that 
are  making  a  different  future. 

But  if  this  irrevocableness  is  due  to  the  working  of 
the  immanent  God,  then  God  must  save  us.  And 
He  must  save  us  by  enabling  us  to  counterbalance  the 
awful  tendency  to  sinful  living  that  brings  suffer- 
ing. The  spiritual  life  must  be  made  triumphant  by 
the  Spirit  of  God. 

Have  we  confidence  to  believe  that  each  of  us  can 
share  in  regenerating  love  ?  Love  we  believe  is  at  the 
heart  of  things,  but  the  love  revealed  by  philosophy 
and  science  is  a  heartless,  relentless  process-love  that 
saves  the  race  by  crushing  the  individual  who  refuses 


184    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

to  conform  to  its  ongoing.  Most  men  want  to  be 
saved  themselves.  Who  can  give  us  the  assurance 
that  divine  love  can  save  the  individual  man  or 
woman,  and  who  can  show  us  the  sort  of  life  implied 
by  such  a  salvation? 

The  reply  comes  from  the  gospel:  Jesus.  In 
him  is  to  be  seen  the  redemptive  life  of  God.  In 
him  was  the  spiritual  life  that  triumphs  over  tempta- 
tion and  the  natural  order.  Knowing  him  and  his 
teaching  we  know  how  to  harmonize  our  life  with  the 
regenerating  life  of  God.  We  simply  have  to  live 
like  our  Master.  So  to  live  is  to  come  under  the 
saving  power  of  God.  It  is  to  establish  a  personal  sit- 
uation which  in  itself  is  dynamic,  and  the  result  of 
which,  so  far  as  the  individual  is  concerned,  must 
mean  progress  toward  likeness  with  the  God  who  is 
one  element  of  the  situation.  For  in  friendship  per- 
sonality always  transforms  personality.  The  fact 
that  such  a  divinely  regenerate  life  will  be  ultimately 
victorious  over  passion  and  sin  and  death,  is  to-day's 
equivalent  of  that  removal  of  guilt  which  Paul  de- 
scribed as  justification.  The  loving  God  of  the  uni- 
verse will  save  a  man  who  tries  to  live  like  Jesus. 
Of  this  we  are  sure.  For  such  a  man  will  have  the 
spiritual  life,  the  "mind"  of  Jesus. 


THE   FORGIVENESS   OF   SIN  185 

IV 

But  the  experience  of  forgiveness  and  his  certainty 
of  acquittal  at  the  coming  Judgment  Day  left  in 
Paul's  mind  the  question:  Is  it  just  that  one  who  is 
morally  imperfect  should  escape  the  consequences 
of  his  sin?  In  such  a  case  is  not  the  moral  order 
threatened  ? 

This  question,  springing  as  it  does  from  the  keen 
realization  of  guilt  which  so  marked  the  Hebrew 
religion,  was  never  raised  by  Jesus.  He  simply 
argued  that  God's  fatherliness  could  be  trusted 
to  welcome  the  prodigal  just  as  implicitly  as  a  human 
father  could  be  trusted  to  give  good  gifts  to  his  chil- 
dren. But  such  an  answer  did  not  and  will  not  satisfy 
minds  that  seek  to  systematize  such  forgiveness  with 
their  world-view.  The  question  of  Paul  was  inevi- 
table. 

It  is  to  be  noticed,  however,  that  Christian  ex- 
perience is  here  the  point  of  departure.  Paul  did 
not  believe  in  the  forgiveness  of  sin  because  he 
believed  in  an  atonement;  he  believed  in  an  atone- 
ment because  he  had  experienced  that  which  im- 
plies that  his  sin  was  forgiven.  Because  of  the  gift 
of  the  Spirit  he  never  doubted  that  God  and  he 
were  actually  reconciled  and  that  punishment  was 
no  longer  to  be  feared  by  him.     The  further  ques- 


l86    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

tion  concerned  not  himself  but  the  moral  sover- 
eignty of  God.  He  found  his  answer  suggested  in 
the  very  presuppositions  of  the  world-view  which 
suggested  the  question  as  to  the  moral  order.  The 
sovereign  God  wanted  to  forgive  and  had  forgiven 
those  who  had  accepted  Jesus  as  Christ.  He  had, 
however,  preserved  the  integrity  of  His  law  and  of 
His  sovereignty  in  this  act  of  grace,  by  setting  forth 
Jesus  himself  in  his  blood  as  the  propitiatory  gift 
which  sealed  reconciliation.  From  a  little  different 
angle  Jesus  was  also  conceived  of  by  Paul  as  a  king 
who  died  vicariously  for  his  followers  —  an  analogy 
doubtless  suggested  by  the  not  infrequent  punish- 
ment of  a  rebellious  king  by  the  Romans  as  an  off- 
set for  the  exhibition  of  certain  clemency  to  his 
rebellious  subjects.  Jesus  had  borne  death,  the 
punishment  of  sin,  although  he  himself  had  not 
sinned.  God's  sovereignty  was  therefore  vindi- 
cated and  He  was  free  to  acquit  those  whom  He 
would. 

The  New  Testament  writers  no  more  than  Paul 
ever  elaborated  systematically  this  atoning  work  of 
Christ.  They  make  it  real  to  the  believer  by  the 
use  of  figures.  But  all  of  them  —  sacrifice,  redemp- 
tion, purchase  —  clearly  enough  possess  the  same 
significance;    the  death  of  the  Christ  was  a  neces-/ 


THE    FORGIVENESS    OF    SIN  187 

sary,  an  integral  part  of  his  very  vocation  as  deliverer. 
He  died  in  behalf  of  sinners.  Not,  it  is  true,  in  the 
sense  that  God  had  to  be  placated  or  appeased. 
Without  exception,  the  apostles  held  that  God 
Himself  originated  the  plan  of  salvation.  The  sac- 
rificial aspect  of  the  death  of  the  Christ  was  derived 
from  a  belief  as  to  what  the  death  of  the  lamb  did 
for  the  man  who  sought  reconciliation  with  God 
at  the  altar.  It  brought  the  final  assurance  of 
such  reconciliation  and  removal  of  guilt.  Christ 
was  the  Christian's  passover,  and  his  death  was 
interpreted  figuratively  as  the  seal  of  the  believers' 
assurance  of  reconciliation.  Viewed  as  a  ransom 
or  purchase,  the  death  of  Christ  was  never  in  the 
New  Testament  treated  as  an  actual  payment  to 
Satan  or  to  God,  but  rather  as  the  cost  of  his  mes- 
sianic work.  He  could  not  save  without  dying; 
for  death  was  the  penalty  of  sin  from  which  men 
were  to  be  saved,  and  the  revelation  of  the  possi- 
bility of  such  deliverance  could  be  made  only  by 
an  actual  and  typical  example  of  such  deliverance. 
In  a  truer  sense  than  men  have  sometimes  seen, 
the  Christ  bore  the  sin  of  the  world;  for  as  part 
of  a  world  in  which  sin  was  socialized  he  bore  to 
the  full  its  outcome  of  hate  and  violence  and 
death. 


l88         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN  MAN 

V 

I.  It  was  inevitable  that  this  dogmatically  un- 
developed estimate  of  the  death  of  Christ  should 
have  ceased  to  satisfy  the  minds  of  those  who  en- 
deavored to  set  forth  their  Christianity  as  a  philo- 
sophical system.  Yet,  somewhat  strangely,  the 
doctrine  of  the  atonement  was  among  the  last  of 
the  doctrines  to  be  systematically  developed.  Chris- 
tianity conquered  the  Roman  world  without  pos- 
sessing any  authoritative  doctrine  of  the  atonement. 
Indeed,  the  Greek,  as  contrasted  with  the  Latin 
Fathers,  with  the  Roman  sense  of  law  and  its 
punishment,  always  found  in  the  death  of  Jesus  an 
element  in  their  characteristic  doctrine  of  salvation, 
viz.  that  in  Jesus  humanity  was  brought  to  im- 
mortality rather  than  to  forensic  guiltlessness.  For 
hundreds  of  years  the  figures  of  the  ransom  were 
conceived  of  literally  and  Jesus  was  believed  to 
have  given  himself  a  ransom  to  Satan  in  return  for 
the  release  of  the  saints  in  Sheol.  Such  a  concep- 
tion rests  upon  the  assumption  that  Satan  had  a 
claim  on  man  which  God  Himself  had  to  recognize ; 
and  this  is  definitely  stated  by  some  of  the  greatest 
of  the  church  fathers.  Indeed,  so  far  was  this  con- 
ception pushed  that  deliverance  was  believed  to  have 
been   accomplished   by   deceit,    according   to   such 


THE   FORGIVENESS   OF   SIN  1 89 

fathers  as  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Ambrose,  Leo,  and 
Gregory  I.  According  to  the  latter  the  humanity 
of  Jesus  was  a  bait  offered  by  God  to  the  devil, 
who  snapped  at  it  and  was  left  hanging  on  the  in- 
visible hook,  Christ's  divinity.  Such  a  plan  of 
salvation  was  frankly  called  by  one  of  its  champions, 
the  great  Ambrose,  a  "pious  fraud." 

Such  a  grotesque  theory  of  the  atonement,  al- 
though natural  for  the  man  who  interprets  certain 
figures  of  the  New  Testament  literally,  was  ob- 
viously to  be  held  only  at  the  expense  of  a  belief 
in  a  moral  God.  Yet  it  was  difficult  to  eradicate 
it  from  the  thought  of  men.  Even  to  the  present 
day  it  will  occasionally  be  met.  But  from  the  time 
of  Origen  it  was  supplemented  by  the  conception 
of  sacrifice,  the  outgrowth  of  social  experience. 
Christ's  flesh,  according  to  many  of  the  early  writers, 
was  an  actual  sacrifice  offered  to  God.  As  early 
as  the  fourth  century  we  find  the  idea  that  such  a 
sacrificial  death  of  God  was  the  only  means  by 
which  the  death  decreed  by  Him  could  be  van- 
quished and  thus  harmony  be  brought  between  Him 
and  His  love. 

This  conception  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  sacrifice, 
though  undeveloped  as  long  as  sacrifice  was  an 
existing  social  institution,  was  given  a  new  turn  in 


190    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

the  West  by  the  growing  secondary  Christianity  of 
the  Latin  church.  The  conception  of  merit  through 
penance  was  extended  to  the  work  of  Christ.  From 
the  days  of  Tertulhan  Latin  Christianity  increas- 
ingly beheved  that  God  needed  to  be  propitiated 
through  suffering,  and  there  grew  up  inevitably  the 
quantitative  conception  of  such  suffering.  If  there 
was  more  suffering  than  there  was  guilt,  or  if  a 
man  did  more  than  his  prescribed  duty,  he  would 
lay  up  merit.  Thus  there  developed  the  theory 
that,  as  Jesus  was  sinless,  his  sufferings  and  death 
possessed  merits  which  could  be  transferred  through 
the  church  to  the  elect.  This  conception,  which 
still  survives  in  the  Christian  creeds,  was  supple- 
mented by  Anselm  with  the  German  conception  of 
composition  (Wehrgeld)  and  the  idea  of  honor  per- 
meating the  age  of  chivalry.  An  injury  to  another 
was  of  two  parts;  that  to  the  person  or  estate,  and 
that  to  the  "honor"  or  'dignity."  It  could  be 
requited  by  the  lex  lalionis,  or  the  injured  party's 
honor  could  be  satisfied  by  the  punishment  or  the 
submission  of  the  wrongdoer,  or  by  the  payment 
of  a  sum  of  money.  Every  injury  was  thus  easily 
translated  into  a  debt  varying  with  the  ''honor"  of 
the  person  injured.  In  the  case  of  God,  humanity 
owed  him  absolute  obedience,  but   since  men  had 


THE   FORGIVENESS   OF    SIN  191 

sinned  they  owed  him  reparation.  As  God  is 
infinite  the  injury  and  consequently  the  debt  to  his 
honor  were  infinite.  Obviously  mankind  being 
finite  could  not  make  the  amende  honorable  to  the 
injured  deity  and  would  have  been  hopelessly  lost 
had  not  God  become  man  and  made  infinite  satis- 
faction in  the  person  of  the  God-man  Jesus.  This 
belief,  born  of  social  practice,  expressed  by  Ansebn  in 
his  famous  treatise  "  Cur  Deus  Homo/^  was  the  first 
attempt  to  utilize  the  death  of  Jesus  in  really  sys- 
tematic fashion.  The  "satisfaction"  of  the  in- 
finite debt  owed  by  man  to  God  whose  infinite 
honor  he  had  injured  could  be  paid  only  by  God 
who  became  man.  The  suffering  of  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  was  magnified  to  infinity  by  his 
divine  nature,  and  thus  the  way  was  open  for  God, 
with  honor  satisfied,  to  forgive  those  elect  who  had 
faith  and  works. 

2.  It  is  unnecessary  to  trace  further  the  theories 
of  an  objective  atonement  by  the  Christ.  They  are 
all  modifications  of  ransom,  sacrifice,  or  satisfac- 
tion. Not  always  as  distinct  as  these  original 
types,  they  have  seldom  advanced  far  beyond  them. 
Whether  God's  justice  or  His  law  needed  vindica- 
tion makes  small  difference.  All  theories  as  to  the 
atonement   implicitly  or   explicitly  imply   that   the 


192  THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

moral  unity  of  God  is  threatened  by  His  forgiveness 
of  sins.  He  is  in  danger  of  losing  either  His  repu- 
tation as  the  God  of  Law,  or  His  right  to  forgive. 
And  it  is  to  avert  this  threatened  schism  in  the 
divine  character  that  the  death  of  the  Christ  has 
been  set  forth  in  accordance  with  the  prevailing 
concepts  of  various  ages. 

It  has  followed  that  no  theory  has  been  uni- 
versally acceptable  to  the  church.  The  social  ideals 
on  which  each  has  been  built  have  themselves  been 
outgrown.  Each  has  seemed  to  its  critics  to  justify 
God  at  the  expense  of  violating  some  fundamental 
ethical  conviction  of  the  Christian  born  of  a  higher 
social  morality.  And  thus  it  has  come  to  pass  that 
throughout  the  history  of  the  church  there  has  been 
no  view  of  the  atonement  so  acceptable  as  that  un- 
developed statement  of  the  fact  so  variously  ex- 
pressed in  the  New  Testament,  —  that  the  death 
of  Christ  was  an  integral  part  and  necessary  out- 
come of  his  work  of  salvation.  The  varieties  in  the 
doctrines  have  never  been  unified  by  any  ecumeni- 
cal council  and  there  is  thus  no  orthodox  theory 
of  the  atonement  on  an  equality  with  that  of  the 
person  of  Christ.  Throughout  Christendom  each 
body  of  Christians,  nay,  I  had  almost  said,  each 
individual  Christian,  has  his  own  view  of  this  central 


THE    FORGIVENESS   OF   SIN  I93 

truth  of  the  gospel.  There  are  those  who  believe 
that  Christ  bore  the  quantitative  equivalent  of  all 
the  punishments  due  to  all  the  sins  of  all  mankind; 
others  who  hold  that  as  the  universal  man  he  ac- 
tually bore  the  punishment  due  humanity;  others 
who  hold  that  God  was  graciously  pleased  to  reckon 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  as  rendering  satisfaction  for 
His  law  broken  by  mankind ;  others  who  believe  that 
by  union  with  Christ  the  believer  shares  in  his  death 
and  thus  in  the  punishment  borne  by  him;  others, 
that  as  a  substitute  for  the  believer  he  bore  suffer- 
ing which  in  their  case  would  have  been  punish- 
ment; others,  that  by  his  death  he  expiated  the 
sins  of  mankind  and  appeased  an  angry  God ;  others, 
that  Christ  offered  in  behalf  of  the  race  a  universal 
and  representative  repentance  which  literally  broke 
his  heart  so  that  he  died  of  it.  And  the  list  might 
be  extended  indefinitely. 

Yet  at  one  point  the  Christian  consciousness  of 
the  ages  has  been  at  one.  The  death  of  Jesus  was 
not  that  of  a  mere  martyr.  In  some  way  the  West- 
ern world  has  found  in  it  a  release  from  its  sense 
of  guilt.  The  moral  influence  theory  of  the  atone- 
ment represents  a  great  truth,  for  his  death  was 
certainly  calculated  to  move  men  to  an  appreciation 
of  the  love  of  God.     But  such  a  view  is  only  par- 


194         THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

tially  satisfactory.  Beyond  the  influence  of  the 
death  upon  mankind  there  is,  as  the  apostles  and 
the  church  have  insisted,  that  which  is  a  revelation 
of  the  divine  economy  which  brings  intellectual  as 
well  as  religious  peace.  The  modern  man  can 
think  of  this  economy  in  terms  of  transfer  of  penalty 
only  by  abandoning  his  fundamental  conception  of 
the  relation  of  God  to  His  world,  but  he  cannot 
overlook  the  inference  that  if  Christ  be  all  the 
Christian  community  feels  he  must  have  been, 
his  death  has  a  deeper  significance  than  that  of 
the  moral  influence  of  martyrdom.  It  is  a  reve- 
lation of  God's  purpose  and  character.  Its  worth 
is   Christ's  worth. 

VI 

But  how  shall  the  modern  man  express  this  con- 
viction in  terms  intelligible  to  himself?  The  trans- 
fer of  penalty,  sacrifice,  and  propitiation  in  the 
original  sense  of  the  terms,  the  satisfaction  of  the 
divine  honor,  the  vindication  of  God's  sovereign 
law  —  all  these  formulas,  however  helpful  to  their 
authors  and  in  greater  or  less  degrees  to  the  church 
of  to-day  either  spring  from  philosophies,  rites,  and 
political  theories,  which  are  meaningless  to  him,  or 
fail  to  express  his  own  sense  of  the  nature  of  the 


THE   FORGIVENESS   OF    SIN  1 95 

cosmic  God.  If  he  is  to  grasp  the  meaning  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sin  in  any  sense  like  that  of  the  gos- 
pel, he  must  place  the  death  of  Christ  among  those 
elements  of  his  world-view  that  are  the  equivalent 
of  those  in  which  Paul  expressed  his  own  sense  of 
its  significance  as  a  means  of  justifying  his  faith  in 
God.  It  must  be  discovered  by  being  correlated 
with  the  immanence  of  God,  the  divinely  directed 
process  of  which  human  history  is  one  phase,  and 
social  solidarity. 

True,  he  may  say  he  has  no  need  of  such  a  for- 
mulation, that  his  faith  in  God  requires  no  re- 
course to  the  death  of  Jesus  for  vindication.  But 
none  the  less  in  the  long  run  he  will  face  the  need, 
and  then  just  as  he  has  found  courage  and  hope 
in  the  example  of  his  Master  will  he  find  new  help 
and  faith  in  a  proper  estimate  of  his  death. 

Nor  is  such  an  estimate  impossible.  Disregard- 
ing all  questions  as  to  what  figures  can  best  express 
our  instinctive  recognition  of  this  deeper  and,  one 
is  tempted  to  say,  cosmic  significance  of  Jesus' 
death,  it  is  possible  for  a  mind  controlled  by  the 
presuppositions  of  the  modern  world  to  see  in  it 
certain  literal  truths  of  elemental  importance. 

I.  In  the  first  place  it  exhibits  Jesus'  faith  in  the 
justice  of  God's  moral  order. 


196         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

(i)  Jesus  accepted  as  just  the  suffering  involved 
in  the  social  effects  of  sin. 

There  is  nothing  in  life  more  perplexing  or  mad- 
dening than  to  see  a  man  reaping  the  results  of 
other  men's  wrongdoing,  yet,  by  the  laws  of  heredity 
and  by  the  laws  governing  the  socialization  of  in- 
fluence, nothing  is  more  common.  The  sins  of  the 
fathers  are  visited  unto  the  third  and  fourth  genera- 
tions and  the  misery  born  of  violation  of  the  con- 
structive forces  of  society  extend  through  war  and 
poverty  and  a  thousand  other  media  to  uncounted 
millions.  To  this  great  law  Jesus  became  uncom- 
plainingly subject.  He  must  have  regarded  it  as 
at  least  just,  as  a  part  of  the  divine  law. 

(2)  By  his  death  Jesus  also  recognized  as  just 
that  other  fact  so  desperately  hard  to  understand, 
that  service  rendered  by  love  to  the  higher  needs 
of  the  world  is  at  the  expense  of  suffering  caused  by 
the  sin  of  others. 

Vicarious  suffering,  through  sympathy  or  body, 
seems  to  be  demanded  from  love  in  every  phase  of 
human  existence  from  birth  to  death.  Just  why 
this  should  be  true  in  the  case  of  sin  we  are  unable 
to  say.  We  only  know  that  it  is  involved  in  that 
struggle  by  which  the  good  man  overcomes  the 
force  of  his  own  and  society's  lower  past.     But  just 


THE    FORGIVENESS    OF    SIN  I97 

because  it  does  lie  inextricably  involved  in  the 
social  solidarity  of  human  life  we  want  to  realize 
its  justice.  Otherwise  human  history  grows  dia- 
bolical. If  the  effects  of  sin  were  to  be  limited  to 
those  who  commit  it,  the  problem  would  in  a  meas- 
ure disappear,  for  humanity  as  a  whole  recognizes 
the  justice  of  punishment  on  the  part  of  those  who 
do  wrong.  But  why  should  the  innocent  suffer? 
The  question  is  a  part  of  that  larger  question  as  to 
whether  the  God  of  Law  is  a  God  of  Love,  but  with 
this  difference :  it  involves  our  recoil  from  the  inno- 
cent man's  suffering  the  consequences  of  another's 
sin.  Here  again  Jesus  helps  us  with  life  rather 
than  philosophy.  If  he  had  judged  such  a  fact  to 
be  wrong  we  might  have  expected  some  protest  from 
his  lips,  but  he  submitted  to  the  fact  as  a  part  of 
the  great  world  in  which  he  was  involved.  Desiring 
to  love  and  serve  men  he  suffered  that  which  such 
effort  brought  from  the  hatred  of  those  whom  he 
would  help.  And  by  his  faith  we  are  inspired  to 
similar  faith. 

2.  In  the  second  place  the  sufferings  of  Jesus 
exhibit  his  faith  in  the  love  of  God. 

(i)  The  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  these  two  laws 
of  social  evolution  was  not  that  of  desperate  sub- 
mission.    On  the  contrary,  he  accepted  them  as 


198         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

the  will  of  a  loving  Father.  He  trusted  the  good- 
ness of  the  immanent  God  who  had  so  organized 
humanity  by  His  very  presence  that  sin,  by  involv- 
ing the  innocent  as  well  as  the  guilty  in  its  conse- 
quences, should  be  shown  exceeding  sinful.  Such 
an  attitude  of  mind  is  the  complement  of  that  love 
which  would  save  humanity.  But  it  is,  if  possible, 
something  even  more  heroic  and  wonderful.  It  is 
one  thing,  like  the  condemned  nobles  of  the  Reign 
of  Terror,  to  help  a  fellow  creature  doomed  to  one's 
own  fate;  it  is  quite  another  to  believe  that  the 
judge  who  pronounces  the  common  sentence  is  not 
only  just  but  loving.  The  faith  of  Jesus  was  far 
enough  from  stoicism.  In  undergoing  his  suffering 
and  death  Jesus  exhibited  no  mere  speculative  con- 
j&dence  in  impersonal  law.  A  submission  to  the 
physical  world  by  no  means  excludes  rebellion  at 
suffering  in  a  moral  sphere.  The  situation  in  which 
Jesus  found  himself  demands  faith  rather  than 
logic.  He  saw  no  Reign  of  Terror  in  God's  king- 
dom. He  drew  trust  in  love  from  his  own  sense  of 
divine  sonship.  It  was  because  of  his  inner  experi- 
ence of  God  as  Father  that  he  drank  the  cup  in 
Gethsemane. 

(2)  But  self-devotion  to  an  ideal  and  trust  in  a 
loving  God  are  not  all  that  can  be  seen  in  the  vicari- 


THE    FORGIVENESS   OF   SIN  I99 

ous  suffering  of  Jesus.  The  question  still  remains 
whether  he  was  not  after  all  another  in  the  long 
line  of  victims,  and  the  consequent  fear  lest  the  life 
of  love  which  he  chose  as  the  only  possible  expres- 
sion of  his  sense  of  God's  presence  is  really  weaker 
than  the  life  of  hatred  that  hung  him  on  the  cross. 
At  this  point  we  pass  from  the  faith  of  Jesus  to  the 
objective  facts  of  his  history. 

True,  such  a  question  can  in  part  be  answered 
by  the  response  which  our  best  selves  make  to  any- 
thing that  is  fine  and  heroic.  The  very  uprising  of 
the  progressively  realized  spiritual  life  within  us 
leads  us  instinctively  to  feel  that  it  is  better  to  fol- 
low an  ideal  to  the  cross  than  to  retreat  with  creature 
comfort  to  the  Governor's  palace.  In  part,  too,  it 
can  be  answered  by  the  service  which  the  Christian 
community  has  been  inspired  by  his  self-devotion 
to  render  to  society.  But  even  thus  we  are  not 
quite  content.  The  modern  man,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  is  sorely  tempted  to  doubt  even  such 
judgments  of  ultimate  value.  And  here  the  his- 
torical Jesus  does  indeed  help  us  to  freedom.  The 
gospel  breeds  new  confidence  in  the  supremacy  of 
the  spiritual  life  even  though  it  submits  to  vicarious 
suffering  by  presenting  the  risen  Jesus.  He  is  no 
longer  a  dead  Christ;    he  is  the  risen  Christ  who 


200         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN    MAN 

died.  His  resurrection  is  not  set  forth  by  the 
apostles  as  an  unrelated  wonder.  It  is  to  them  the 
dramatic  exposition  of  the  fact  that  though  he 
suffer  the  worst  sin  can  inflict,  a  man  is  not  thereby 
necessarily  defeated.  If  only  his  spiritual  life  is  in 
right  relations  with  God  he  is  forgiven  and  trium- 
phant over  death  itself. 

For  what  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins?  Juristically 
considered  it  is  the  remission  of  penalty  due  not 
only  to  individual  sins  but  to  human  nature  itself. 
But  what  is  remission  of  penalty  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  presuppositions  of  modern  thinking? 
It  must  be  something  more  than  the  mere  abroga- 
tion of  punishment  attached  to  the  breaking  of 
statutes.  Punishment  in  the  moral  sphere  is  not 
external  to  the  wrongdoer.  We  have  passed  the 
stage  of  a  forensic  theology.  The  forgiveness  of 
sins  means  that  in  the  personal  sphere  wrongdoing 
can  be  prevented  from  resulting  in  its  otherwise 
inevitable  suffering.  Mechanical  analogies  are  here 
superior  to  forensic,  for  we  know  that  one  force 
may  be  offset  and  so  rendered  inoperative  by  an- 
other. But  mechanical  analogies  themselves  are 
imperfect.  In  sin  we  are  dealing  with  a  diseased 
personality,  and  in  forgiveness  we  see  the  cure  of 
that  which  is  diseased  by  the  establishment  of  a 


THE    FORGIVENESS    OF    SIN  20I 

new  situation  from  which  flow  new  and  regenerate 
personal  outcomes  in  the  place  of  those  which  other- 
wise would  have  flowed  from  the  sinful  soul. 

To  have  a  life  strong  enough  through  personal 
relations  with  God  to  overpower  the  force  of  the 
"body  of  death,"  the  survivals  of  animalism,  in  the 
moral  realm,  is  to  have  a  life  also  strong  enough  to 
overcome  its  other  result,  death.  The  Christlike 
spiritual  life  is  thus  triumphant  in  man's  entire 
personality.  And  that  is  what  the  modern  man 
means  by  the  divine  forgiveness  of  which  the  earthly 
is  so  poor  an  analogy.  It  is  a  dynamic,  a  regener- 
ating reconciliation. 

This  is  one  message  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
crucified  Christ.  He  stands  forth  as  the  very  epit- 
ome and  absolute  type  of  what  humanity  is  when 
forgiven.  That  generically  human  nature  which 
was  his  was  transformed  because  of  the  divine 
presence.  He  not  only  conquered  sin  in  the  region 
of  conduct;  he  conquered  death  by  surpassing  the 
inherited  physical  nature  from  which  sin  springs. 
In  a  sense  far  truer  than  the  realists  among  the 
schoolmen  saw,  in  Jesus  humanity  was  submitting 
to  humanity's  ultimate  test.  And  it  showed  itself 
forgivable,  not  only  in  that  Christ  never  yielded  to 
the  backward  pull  which  was  implicit  in  his  very 


202         THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

humanity,  but  also  in  that  by  his  resurrection  there 
was  exhibited  the  actual  outcome  in  spiritual  life 
of  a  union  with  God  which  forgiveness  promises. 
The  gospel  is  profoundly  psychological  in  insisting 
that  forgiveness  must  mean  more  than  assurance  of 
pardon  and  peace  of  soul.  It  must  mean  also  the 
concrete  effects  of  a  reconciliation  of  two  personali- 
ties to  be  seen  in  the  outcome  of  the  development 
of  the  weaker  personality.  And  the  ultimate  out- 
come of  a  personality  whose  spiritual  life  has  re- 
sponded to  and  so  is  filled  with  God,  both  the  New 
Testament  and  the  modern  man  can  see  in  the 
character  and  the  resurrection  of  the  Jesus  who 
tasted  the  bitterness  of  death. 

3.  But  our  premises  carry  us  one  step  farther 
into  that  which  is  objective.  In  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus  God  is  revealed  as  an  ethical 
unity.  That  is  the  answer  to  the  fundamental 
philosophical  question  raised  by  the  gospel  —  the 
question  of  whether  God  can  be  "just"  and  the 
"justifier"  of  those  who  accept  Him.  To  its  solu- 
tion every  theory  of  the  atonement  that  is  more 
than  that  of  exemplary  martyrdom  has  addressed 
itself.  Each  one  of  them  tries  to  enforce  upon  those 
who  share  in  its  presuppositions  that  the  moral  order 
is  eternal.     Sin  is  not  less  dangerous,  God  is  not 


THE   FORGIVENESS    OF    SIN  203 

more  lenient,  because  of  the  saving  work  of  Jesus. 
In  so  far  as  Christ  really  individualized  the  imma- 
nent God  did  he  exhibit  in  his  experience  the  loving 
character  of  Him  who  established  and  sustains  the 
process  which  attaches  misery  to  sin.  In  his  ex- 
perience we  see  that  such  suffering  is  the  sterner 
side  of  the  divine  self -manifestation  in  humanity. 
God  is  not  indulgent  in  his  forgiveness.  He  does 
not  reverse  his  universe  in  order  to  check  that  suf- 
fering even  though  it  pass  upon  so  pure  and  in- 
nocent a  soul  as  Jesus.  Therein  is  set  forth  ''the 
judgment  of  sin  in  the  flesh,"  the  awfulness  of  sin 
in  a  socially  united  world.  However  faint  may  be 
our  confidence  even  in  our  own  formulas,  we  can 
see  in  the  experience  of  Jesus  the  worth  and  mean- 
ing of  such  a  love.  And  in  that  assurance  the 
sense  of  guilt  born  of  a  social  experience  in  which 
law  has  become  a  universal  presupposition,  vanishes. 
Suffering  is  seen  first,  but  love  is  seen  supreme. 
While  it  is  true  we  cannot  see  why  man  was  so 
constituted  that  moral  development  brings  suffer- 
ing upon  its  leaders,  we  can  see  that  the  forces 
which  compel  such  suffering,  while  immutable  be- 
cause the  expression  of  God's  will,  are  not  supreme, 
but  are  rather  only  the  tragic  concomitants  of 
that  power  of  progress  towards  the  spiritual  which 


204         THE    GOSPEL    AND   THE    MODERN    MAN 

argues  and  reveals  divine  presence  and  divine  love. 
God  as  revealed  in  the  dying  and  risen  Jesus  is  seen 
to  be  ethically  at  one.  To  see  this  and  to  believe 
it  is  for  the  man  who  seeks  to  live  the  Christlike 
spiritual  life  of  love  and  faith  and  service  to  lose 
all  sense  of  fear  and  guilt. 

4.  This  revelation  of  ethical  unity  in  a  God 
who  is  both  law  and  love,  justice  and  forgiveness, 
does  not  argue  that  the  two  qualities  are  coordinate. 
The  Christian  conception  of  God,  confirmed  and 
illuminated  by  a  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  is  one  in 
which  love  is  really  supreme.  As  has  already  ap- 
peared, from  such  a  point  of  view  alone  do  we  find 
unity  in  the  process  of  the  universe  and  particularly 
in  humanity's  struggle  upward  against  sin  and  evil 
towards  a  spiritual  life  like  Christ's.  How  much 
truer  is  it  that  only  from  such  a  point  of  view  do 
we  find  an  explanation  of  that  which  the  gospel 
reveals  as  salvation.  Love  which  is  the  supreme 
quality  of  the  spiritual  life  in  humanity  is  but  the 
imperfect  reflection  of  the  Love  which  has  been 
revealed  in  the  Son.  But  it  is  a  Love  which  expresses 
itself  not  alone  in  the  single  moment  of  the  death 
of  Jesus,  but,  as  the  gospel  always  insists,  in  the 
entire  relationship  of  God  and  man  revealed  and 
"chaptered_up/'  as   Paul   says,    in    Jesus.     ''The 


THE    FORGIVENESS    OF   SIN  205 

lamb  was  slain  before  the  foundation  of  the  world" 
—  this  evangelic  formula  forever  disabuses  our 
thought  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  an  appendix  of 
the  work  of  God  in  creation  and  development  in 
either  the  natural  or  the  spiritual  order.  "  God  so 
loved  the  world  that  He  gave  his  only  begotten  son 
to  save  the  world "  —  this  is  the  evangelic  formula 
for  the  ultimate  interpretation  of  the  purpose  of  the 
entire  life  of  Jesus.  Love  divine  in  him  stooped 
to  share  in  human  weakness  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  on  that  work  which  humanity  unaided 
could  never  hope  to  realize.  In  this  love  that  seeks 
to  save  at  the  cost  of  its  own  suffering  do  we  see 
the  supreme  and  final  meaning  of  the  death  of 
Christ.  He  stands  not  over  against  God,  seeking  to 
mitigate  divine  severity,  but  as  the  very  embodi- 
ment of  a  love  that  dares  suffer  to  protect  its  own 
law-abiding  nature.  And  in  his  perception  of  such 
divine  sympathy  and  fellow-suffering  the  modem 
man,  even  more  than  his  brethren,  makes  his  own 
the  words  of  Paul  —  who  in  all  the  agony  and  sin- 
fulness of  life  deemed  himself  more  than  conqueror 
through  Him  that  loved  us  —  "For  I  am  persuaded 
that  neither  death,  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor  princi- 
palities, nor  things  present,  nor  things  to  come,  nor 
powers,  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature, 


2o6         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN    MAN 

shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord." 

VII 

Such  an  estimate  of  Jesus  as  removing  all  sense  of 
guilt  by  his  revelation  of  the  actuality  of  forgiveness 
and  the  ethical  unity  and  sympathy  of  God,  reem- 
phasizes  the  truth  that  what  the  gospel  calls  the  for- 
giveness of  sin  is  really  the  negative  side  of  what  it 
also  calls  positively  the  new  life  in  Christ  A  really 
Christian  soteriology  must  be  vital  as  well  as  moral. 
Its  different  aspects  may  be  expressed  by  innumerable 
figures,  but  the  central  fact  itself  must  be  more  than 
figure.  Grounding  as  we  do  our  view  of  sin  in  the 
teaching  given  us  by  so  many  sciences  that  the  indi- 
vidual is  a  mass  of  survivals  which  tend  to  reassert 
themselves,  it  is  plain  that  in  forgiveness  we  are  deal- 
ing with  the  emancipated  spiritual  life  rather  than 
the  removal  of  superimposed  sentences.  The  Greek 
fathers  here  saw  more  clearly  than  the  Latin.  The 
deeper  we  probe  sin  the  nearer  do  we  find  ourselves 
coming  to  the  problems  of  life  and  death  and  the 
more  are  we  convinced  that  any  salvation  that  is 
more  than  empty  definition  must  involve  all  aspects 
of  personality.  The  gospel  insists  that  we  cannot 
stop  simply  in  the  region  of  release  from  punishment, 


THE    FORGIVENESS   OF   SIN  207 

but  must  press  on  to  appreciate  the  further  and  more 
positive  message  of  the  regeneration  of  the  per- 
sonality itself.  The  gospel  is  not  only  reasonable, 
it  is  dynamic.  And  the  sinless,  risen  Jesus  is  the 
concrete  embodiment  of  the  realities  it  contains. 
Without  him  as  a  real  person  in  history,  belief  in 
the  consonance  of  the  spiritual  life  with  the  natural 
order  and  confidence  in  its  supremacy  to  that  order, 
would  be  but  a  justifiable  hope  and  a  working 
hypothesis.  Possessed  of  him  this  belief  becomes  a 
faith  that  will  move  mountains. 


CHAPTER   VII 

THE   DELIVERANCE   FROM   DEATH 

Death,  like  life,  is  without  definition.  Physiolo- 
gists may  tell  us  what  they  hope  to  discover,  but  they 
can  only  tell  us  their  hopes.  We  know  that  certain 
chemical  processes  cease  and  certain  others  begin, 
but  we  know  little  else  as  to  what  happens  when  a 
man  dies.  For  this  if  for  no  other  reason  humanity 
would  hate  death ;  but  there  is  a  deeper  reason  for 
such  hatred.  There  is  the  elemental  impulse  in  all 
living  organisms  to  protect  the  generic  life  of  which 
they  are  a  part;  and  this  passion  to  perpetuate  life, 
either  of  the  organism  itself  or  by  the  way  of  de- 
scendants, lies  back  of  more  of  the  elements  of  our 
civilization  than  at  first  appear. 

But  humanity  sees  even  more  in  death  than  a  break 
in  the  continuity  of  physical  life.  It  wonders  what 
becomes  of  the  personality.  From  the  very  moment 
when  primitive  man  first  stood  beside  his  dead  the 
question  of  the  future  has  returned  to  turn  mourning 
to  bitterness.  Every  man  knows  that  death  awaits 
both  him  and  those  he  loves.  The  answer  of  the  race 
to  this  fact  has  been  a  challenge  to  death.     Account 

208 


THE    DELIVERANCE    FROM    DEATH  209 

for  the  belief  in  immortality  as  you  will,  it  is  deep  in 

the  heart  of  the  race. 

I 

The  Hebrew  saw  little  more  than  the  darker  side 
of  death.  His  dead  he  believed  had  gone  into  Sheol, 
the  great  pit  below  the  earth,  and  there  they  lived  a 
shadowy,  gray  life,  without  interests,  longing  for  the 
richer  life  they  had  left.  Later,  the  Jew  came  to 
think  of  Sheol  as  of  something  more  than  a  place  of 
abode  and  imagined  it  divided  into  four  great  sec- 
tions :  the  most  miserable  for  sinners  who  had  been 
happy  on  earth ;  the  most  blessed  for  the  righteous 
who  had  been  miserable  upon  earth;  and  between 
these  extremes,  two  other  regions,  one  for  the  sinners 
who  had  been  miserable  and  the  other  for  the  right- 
eous who  had  been  happy  in  life.  But  hatred  of  his 
enemies  as  well  as  his  persistent  sense  of  moral  fitness 
led  him  to  describe  the  first  section  or  place  of  pun- 
ishment more  distinctly.  To  his  imagination  it 
became  a  lake  of  fire  prepared  in  the  first  instance 
for  the  giants  who  were  the  children  of  the  fallen 
angels  and  the  daughters  of  men,  but  also  the  place 
of  torment  for  demons  and  all  those  who  had  op- 
pressed Israel. 

I.  This  awful  future  was  brought  into  relationship 
with  death.     There  was  misery  before  the  suffering 


2IO         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

set  by  the  sentence  of  the  Judgment  Day.  All, 
whether  bad  or  good,  for  a  time  were  disembodied. 
Souls  were  naked  in  Sheol  awaiting  that  great  Day 
of  Judgment  in  which  the  wicked  were  to  be  sent  to 
the  punishments  of  hell  and  the  righteous  should  be 
called  upward  to  assume  new  bodies  and  enter  the 
glorious  new  kingdom  which,  already  in  heaven,  was 
to  be  established  upon  the  earth.  Such  a  conception 
of  resurrection  of  the  individual  sprang  from  a  belief 
in  the  resurgence  of  the  nation.  All  Jews  were  to 
have  a  part  in  the  blessing  of  the  messianic  reign. 
Sometimes  the  hope  grew  very  materialistic.  The 
righteous  were  to  have  eternal  life,  says  the  Enoch 
literature,  were  to  live  five  hundred  years  and  have 
four  hundred  children.  The  fruits  of  the  earth  were 
to  be  indefinitely  increased  and  there  was  to  be  in- 
calculable wealth  of  grain  and  wine. 

It  would  not  be  fair,  however,  to  say  that  the  Jew 
uniformly  believed  in  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh. 
The  words  of  Josephus  imply  that  the  new  bodies 
into  which  the  Pharisees  believed  the  soul  of  the 
righteous  were  to  enter  might  be  something  very 
different  from  those  that  were  flesh.  The  entire 
scope  of  Pharisaism  would  seem  also  to  argue  that  its 
conception  of  the  resurrection  had  moved  out  from 
the  purely  physical  to  something  like  a  transcen- 
dental conception. 


THE    DELIVERANCE    FROM   DEATH  211 

2.  It  is  this  conception  that  to  some  extent  at  least 
reappears  in  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. The  eschatology  of  the  New  Testament  com- 
bines after  the  fashion  of  the  Jewish  Apocalypses  two 
great  conceptions :  the  resurrection  of  the  individual, 
and  the  establishment  of  a  new  social  order.  Of  the 
latter  we  shall  speak  presently.  We  are  now  con- 
cerned with  the  former  element.  Bare  immortality 
in  the  sense  of  a  mere  continuous  existence  of  the 
personality  after  death  is  not  the  evangelic  doctrine. 
That  is  far  more  specific.  The  resurrection  of  the 
dead  as  it  is  presented  by  Jesus  both  in  the  synoptic 
and  in  the  Johannine  teaching  is  clearly  more  than 
physical  reanimation.  Those  who  attain  to  it  are 
neither  to  marry  nor  to  be  given  in  marriage,  and 
Paul  emphatically  declared  that  flesh  and  blood  can- 
not inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  that  the  new 
body  which  awaits  the  Christian  dead  is  a  spiritual 
body.  Such  a  great  change  is  really  a  deliverance 
from  death  as  well  as  from  Sheol.  That  is  to  say, 
the  state  of  the  personality  which  death  established 
is  to  be  ended  and  the  loss  of  the  physical  organism 
is  to  be  met  by  the  gift  of  another  better  adjusted  to 
spiritual  environment. 

Distinct  as  this  gospel  is,  it  is  no  more  so  than  the 
teaching  as  to  the  basis  on  which  this  body  of  the 


212         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN    MAN 

resurrection  is  obtained.  It  is  the  outcome  of  the 
transformation  of  the  human  personality  through  the 
presence  of  God,  the  Holy  Spirit.  A  man  is  not  only 
saved  morally  in  the  sense  that  he  was  given  strength 
to  resist  temptation,  but  he  is  to  be  saved,  if  we  may 
use  the  term,  in  a  biological  psychological  sense. 

Such  a  conception  sprang  directly  from  that  of 
death  as  the  punishment  of  sin.  To  save  a  man  from 
sin  is  to  save  him  from  the  consequence  of  sin  and 
sinfulness.  So  much,  as  we  have  seen,  was  revealed 
in  the  experience  of  Jesus.  The  work  of  God  in  the 
soul  was  held  to  be  regenerating  not  because  a  man 
thereby  gained  immortality,  for  it  seems  to  have  been 
all  but  universally  believed  that  all  men  survived 
death  in  the  sense  that  their  shades  went  to  Sheol, 
but  in  the  sense  of  an  advance  through  death  to 
a  higher,  more  spiritual  life.  The  gospel  properly 
interpreted  is  something  more  than  a  series  of  naive 
promises  of  heaven  to  good  people  and  hell  to  bad 
people.  There  is  in  it  a  genetic  conception  accord- 
ing to  which  the  future  state  of  a  personality  is  con- 
ditioned by  the  adjustment  of  such  personality  to 
the  normal  and  dynamic  situation  created  between 
God  and  itself  through  the  act  of  faith.  He  would 
be  a  very  superficial  interpreter  who  failed  to  see 
that  this  was  an  essential  part  of  the  gospel  conception 


THE  DELIVERANCE  FROM  DEATH      213 

of  salvation.  The  difficulty  of  expressing  it  in  terms 
of  a  scientific  vocabulary  is,  of  course,  evident.  But 
however  expressed,  the  hope  is  fundamental  in  the 
gospel.  It  is  one  thing  to  survive  death ;  it  is  another 
thing  to  share  in  the  resurrection.  The  one  is  static ; 
the  other  is  progressive.  The  Christian  doctrine 
of  immortality  is  a  phase  of  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  evolution  of  the  free  spiritual  personality. 
Such  an  advance  away  from  the  conditions  set  by 
merely  animal  existence  to  those  set  by  more  spiritual 
environment  can  be  enjoyed  only  by  those  who  are  in 
proper  relationship  with  the  constructive  forces  of 
the  spiritual  order.  Sin  by  its  very  nature  is  a  lack 
of  such  harmony  with  God  as  makes  for  the  develop- 
ment of  the  personality  away  from  that  which  it  holds 
in  common  with  the  beast.  Sin,  therefore,  is  some- 
thing more  than  what  we  conventionally  call  an 
ethical  quality.  It  carries  within  itself  forces  of 
degeneration  which  death  completes.  The  gospel 
teaches  that  chief  among  the  results  of  this  devolution 
are,  negatively,  the  failure  to  experience  the  resurrec- 
tion in  the  Christian  sense;  and  second,  positively, 
the  suffering  which  comes  from  the  unnatural  rela- 
tionship with  God.  It  is  true  that  in  one  or  two 
cases  the  New  Testament  speaks  of  the  resurrection 
of  condemnation,  but  the  reference  here  is  to  some- 


214         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN    MAN 

thing  other  than  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  It  is 
rather  to  the  summoning  of  all  souls  from  Sheol  for 
the  purpose  of  judgment  at  the  bar  of  God,  an  ele- 
ment of  the  eschatological  program  that  Christianity 
inherited  from  Jewish  cosmology.  Mere  existence 
was  not  a  good  to  Paul.  That  which  he  longed  for 
and  which  he  believed  all  sane  men  longed  for  was  a 
higher  type  of  life  which  drew  joy  and  peace  and 
noblest  development  from  the  normal,  spiritual  rela- 
tionship of  the  soul  with  God;  and  this  obviously 
could  be  possible  only  to  those  who  had  experienced 
the  great  reconciliation. 

II 

To  a  considerable  extent  these  general  conceptions 
of  the  New  Testament  are  independent  of  the  his- 
toricity of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  but  their  in- 
fluence upon  human  lives  and  so  their  real  place  in 
theology  are  in  point  of  fact  controlled  by  the  disci- 
ples' belief  in  the  reality  of  that  event.  The  modern 
man,  however,  finds  himself  in  a  very  different  atti- 
tude of  mind  from  that  of  the  early  disciples.  Where 
a  belief  in  individual  immortality  exists  among  the 
scientific  and  philosophic  classes  it  is  Greek  rather 
than  Jewish.  Indeed  it  is  undeniable  that  many 
modern  thinkers  find  it  difficult  to  conceive  of  im- 


THE    DELIVERANCE    FROM    DEATH  21 5 

mortality  except  in  terms  of  society  or  of  impersonal 
influence  or  of  the  absorption  of  the  individual  soul 
into  the  Whole.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that 
with  such  views  on  the  one  side  and  with  a  suspicion 
of  all  miracles  on  the  other,  the  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
so  far  from  helping  the  modern  man  as  it  did  the 
apostles  to  focus  and  give  content  to  existing  ideas 
or  expectations  of  immortality,  should  rather  prove 
an  element  of  the  gospel  most  difficult  to  accept. 

We  have  here  another  illustration  of  the  failure  to 
see  that  the  gospel  is  something  other  than  the  mass  of 
opinions  and  dogmas  which  have  grown  up  about  it. 
In  particular  do  we  have  an  illustration  of  the  fact 
that  men  allow  their  a  priori  objections  to  forestall 
the  results  of  historical  criticism.  Looked  at  in  the 
large,  the  refusal  of  our  modern  world  to  accept  the 
Christian  evangelic  hope  of  the  resurrection  is  due 
to  the  very  simple  belief  that  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
such  a  hope  is  impossible  of  realization.  This  ob- 
jection, although  involving  the  old  suspicion  of  what- 
ever is  contrary  to  uniform  experience,  really  goes 
a  step  farther  and  estops  the  plea  in  rebuttal  that 
uniform  experience  has  its  exceptions.  It  seems 
necessary  therefore  to  consider  the  a  priori  objection 
to  immortality  before  considering  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus. 


2l6         THE    GOSPEL    AND   THE    MODERN    MAN 

I.  A  belief  in  immortality  is  a  legitimate  outcome 
of  what  we  know  of  life. 

I  do  no  mean  to  argue  that  a  dissecting  table  is  a 
platform  from  which  to  peer  into  heaven,  or  that  the 
conception  of  life  as  a  purely  physical  and  chemical 
process  conduces  to  a  conviction  that  it  can  continue 
after  such  process  has  ceased.  Nor  would  I  use 
the  term  in  the  sense  of  a  principle  which  exists  as  an 
independent  force  in  the  universe,  although  one 
could  plead  great  names  for  such  a  view.  I  would 
use  the  term  rather  in  a  broader  and  I  must  confess  a 
less  defined  sense.  This,  however,  is  by  no  means  to 
ruin  my  case.  The  word  is  admittedly  without  defi- 
nition, a  sort  of  ideograph  picturing  a  group  of  phe- 
nomena the  causes  of  which  are  not  yet  thoroughly 
known.  But  this  much  seems  clear;  However  life 
originated  it  has  been  constantly  struggling  to  ex- 
press itself  in  more  complicated  forms  and  in  ways 
less  dependent  on  what,  for  lack  of  a  better  term,  we 
can  call  impersonal  forces.  That  is,  it  grows  more 
personal  and  individual.  It  is  the  at  least  partial 
possession  of  these  latter  qualities  that  distinguishes 
men  from  their  animal  kindred.  Our  vocabularies  at 
this  point  are  likely  to  be  misleading,  but  whatever 
else  life  may  include  in  humanity  it  is  far  more 
elaborate  and  self-directive  than  in  the  beast  or  the 


THE  DELIVERANCE  FROM  DEATH      217 

plant.  Human  personality  as  an  expression  of  life 
has  in  itself  irresistible  impulses  to  express  itself  in 
still  other  and  less  materialistic  forms.  It  makes 
little  difference  whether  we  call  this  personal  life  a 
spirit  or  simply  a  new  aspect  of  life  itself.  There  is 
in  every  man  a  quality  we  call  spiritual, —  a  quality 
in  a  striking  way  to  be  described  by  the  theist  as  in 
the  image  of  God.  This  spiritual  life  is  that  to  which 
all  the  past  seems  to  point,  and  this  it  is  that  is  the 
seat  of  whatever  creative  freedom  humanity  has.  And 
this  spiritual  life  is  ever  struggling  to  more  complete 
self-expression, — a  fact  recognized  by  all  attempts  at 
psychological  analysis  as  well  as  by  every  attempt  at 
formulating  the  impulse  to  moral  idealism.  It  is  as 
impossible  to  say  why  life  struggles  thus  to  transfer 
itself  into  higher  and  ultimately  more  spiritual  terms 
as  to  say  why  it  seeks  to  propagate  and  protect 
itself;  but  to  recognize  such  an  impulse  is  only  to 
take  account  of  that  which  really  is. 

Now  a  belief  in  immortality  insists  that  this  process 
is  assisted  by  the  death  of  the  physical  organism. 
It  holds  that  as  in  the  history  of  that  life  there  have 
constantly  been  developed  types  which  are  ever  less 
dependent  on  purely  material  situations,  there  comes 
a  time  when,  in  terms  of  the  spiritual  personality,  it 
is  sufficiently  individualized  to  be  completely  superior 


2l8         THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

to  the  physical  organism.  However  far  we  are  as 
yet  from  understanding  the  relationship  of  spiritual 
life  with  the  physical,  we  have  come  far  enough  to 
recognize  that  the  moral  and  aesthetic  and  rational 
powers  of  the  personality  are  something  very  different 
from  the  physical  life  from  which  they  have  sprung. 
Embryology,  in  either  the  physical  or  the  spiritual 
realms,  is  not  to  be  confused  with  physiology. 

2.  The  most  serious  answer  to  such  a  priori  argu- 
ments as  these  for  the  persistence  of  personality  seems 
to  me  to  come  from  the  side  of  sociology.  And  this 
reply  is  in  brief  that  such  a  new  stage  in  the  process 
through  which  humanity  is  passing  means  the  devel- 
opment of  a  higher  genus  rather  than  the  perpetuation 
and  development  of  the  individual  himself.  And 
it  must  be  admitted  that  such  an  objection  has  great 
weight.  But  at  bottom  it  is  a  matter  of  the  interpre- 
tation of  process  itself.  Is  the  end  to  which  evolution 
tends  the  individual  or  the  group  ?  It  would  seem  to 
me  that  there  can  be  only  one  answer :  the  ultimate 
of  the  evolutionary  process  is  the  completed  free  indi- 
vidual. That  is  to  say,  a  personality  that  finds  its 
completed  self-expression  not  in  a  physical,  but  in  a 
spiritual,  more  completely  personal  situation.  The 
history  of  humanity  itself  seems  to  warrant  such  an 
interpretation.     For  social   institutions  have  never 


THE    DELIVERANCE   FROM   DEATH  219 

been  ends  in  themselves.  Men  have  tried  to  make 
them  such,  but  invariably  there  has  arisen  above  the 
institutional  interpretation  of  society  that  more  crea- 
tive impulse  to  see  in  humanity  persons  on  the  way 
to  free  individuality  rather  than  a  new  race.  He  has 
always  been  regarded  the  most  nearly  perfect  man 
who  has  proved  himself  most  superior  to  the  physical 
and  imperfectly  personal  forces  in  which  he  finds  him- 
self involved.  From  such  a  point  of  view  death  is  a 
new  birth.  The  personality  reached  in  our  moment 
of  physical  life  is,  so  to  speak,  the  embryo  of  that  new 
stage  which  is  made  possible  by  the  emancipation  of 
self  from  the  survival  of  the  strictly  physiological  as- 
pects of  the  process.  Indeed,  were  it  not  that  obser- 
vation is  so  much  more  difficult,  it  would  be  hardly 
more  perplexing  to  see  how  a  life  like  Jesus'  can  per- 
sist through  the  change  of  death  than  how  it  persisted 
through  the  change  of  birth.  The  paraphrase  of 
Professor  Royce  sums  up  the  whole  matter:  "This 
mortal  must  put  on  individuality." 

3.  Nor  is  this  quite  all  that  can  be  said.  Men  of 
science  are  very  properly  cautious  as  to  speculations 
regarding  the  subconscious  or  subliminal  self,  but  a 
review  of  the  psychological  tendencies  of  the  past  ten 
or  a  dozen  years  will  show  that,  despite  such  caution, 
the  belief  that  the  self  is  more  than  its  conscious 


220         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN    MAN 

states  has  gained  steady  acceptance.  Questions  of 
terminology  cannot  obscure  this  fact.  Whatever 
term  may  be  used,  whether  the  soul  be  regarded  as 
an  infinitely  etherized  matter  or  as  spirit,  it  is  no 
longer  permissible  to  doubt  that  the  self  has  qualities 
and  potencies  which  are  other  than  those  which  used 
to  make  the  definitions  of  the  soul.  Below  its  out- 
cropping in  the  conscious  act  or  thought  or  emotion, 
there  is  the  great  ledge  of  personality. 

Difficult  as  is  the  method  of  its  investigation,  this 
subconscious  —  I  use  the  word  only  for  lack  of  a 
better  —  must  form  one  element  of  every  formula 
of  personality.  On  it  an  argument  for  immortality 
can  be  and  has  been  grounded.  For  its  existence  is  a 
constant  reminder  that  the  self  cannot  be  conceived 
of  as  a  mere  aggregation  of  conscious  states  and  that 
in  this  deeper,  more  spiritual  unity  there  lie  powers 
which  may  very  easily  be  conceived  to  survive  those 
conditions  which  make  the  separate  states  of  con- 
sciousness possible.  That  is  to  say,  the  self  in  other 
conditions  than  those  set  by  the  nervous  organism 
might  give  rise  to  states  of  consciousness,  wholly  re- 
gardless of  memory  in  the  ordinary  physiological 
sense  of  the  term.  Who  of  us  remembers  his  in- 
fancy? And  yet  our  stream  of  consciousness  is 
unbroken. 


THE  DELIVERANCE  FROM  DEATH      221 

I  am  well  aware  that  much  of  this  is  speculation. 
It  could  not  well  be  more.  But  it  is  none  the  less  a 
speculation  very  different  from  that  with  which 
Socrates  would  prove  immortality  in  terms  of  preex- 
istence,  for  it  at  least  follows  a  trail  whose  beginnings 
have  been  blazed  by  psychology.  And  as  speculation 
it  is  calculated  to  break  down  the  other  speculation 
by  which  it  is  asserted  that  immortality  is  a  priori 
impossible.  In  fact,  with  all  due  regard  to  the  un- 
certainty of  the  nature  of  immortality  and  without 
sanctioning  all  or  indeed  any  of  the  particular  hy- 
potheses which  have  been  derived  from  this  theory  of 
the  subliminal  self,  it  seems  to  me  beyond  question 
that  we  are  to-day  as  never  before  in  a  position  to 
recognize  the  reasonableness  of  a  genuine  Christian 
doctrine  of  immortality  at  least  as  a  working  hy- 
pothesis. Having  reached  this  point,  the  belief  of 
the  disciples  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  and  their 
hope  of  their  own  appear  far  more  tenable. 

4.  In  the  minds  of  many  people  this  is  as  far  as  one 
can  safely  go  in  the  region  of  antecedent  possibilities. 
But  there  are  others,  of  whom  I  confess  I  am  one,  who 
find  in  themselves  a  growing  readiness  to  believe  that 
sooner  or  later  the  existence  of  the  human  personality 
after  death  will  become  a  matter  of  experiment.  The 
work  of  the  Society  of  Psychical  Research  and  its 


222         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

allied  organizations  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  re- 
sulted in  convincing  conclusions,  but  it  has  at  least 
raised  questions  which  suggest  positive  rather  than 
negative  answers.  We  certainly  have  not  reached  the 
limit  of  that  which  can  be  known,  but  our  ignorance 
is  no  longer  unillumined  by  hope.  The  human  soul 
can  no  longer  be  regarded  as  a  function  of  the  brain, 
and  telepathy  and  hypernormal  communications 
may  yet  reveal  to  us  the  truth  and  the  meaning  of 
those  doctrines  which  have  long  been  based  on  hope 
alone.  At  all  events  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  the 
question  of  immortality  is  passing  from  the  region  of 
religion  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word  to  that  of 
science.  Sooner  or  later  the  view  of  science,  what- 
ever that  may  be,  will  here  prevail  among  modern 
men.  The  desire  for  immortality  will  hardly  be 
taken  always  as  conclusive  evidence  of  a  life  after 
death.  That  view  alone  can  be  regarded  as  final 
which  is  determined  by  our  knowledge  of  the  human 
personality.  And  even  now  such  a  knowledge  bids 
men  pause  before  saying  that  personal  energy  is  to 
be  conserved  only  by  being  transformed  into  me- 
chanical and  chemical  forces.  Values  persist  as 
truly  as  electrons. 

But  to  my  mind  this  is  to  say  that  we  may  dare  hope 
that  one  of  these  days  we  shall  find  science  doing  for 


THE  DELIVERANCE  FROM  DEATH      223 

the  doctrine  of  immortality  what  it  has  done  for  our 
conception  of  creation  ;  namely,  furnish  the  religious 
mind  with  clear  evidence  of  the  presence  of  reason 
and  law  in  human  history  and  destiny.  And  al- 
though I  question  much  of  his  "evidence,"  I  find 
myself  responding  to  these  words  of  the  late  F.  W.  H. 
Myers :  — 

"I  venture  now  on  a  bold  saying  ;  for  I  predict  that,  in 
consequence  of  the  new  evidence,  all  reasonable  men,  a  cen- 
tury hence,  will  believe  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  whereas 
in  default  of  the  new  evidence,  no  reasonable  man,  a  century 
hence,  would  have  believed  it.  The  ground  of  this  forecast 
is  plain  enough.  Our  ever  growing  recognition  of  the  continu- 
ity, the  uniformity  of  cosmic  law  has  gradually  made  of  the 
alleged  uniqueness  of  any  incident  its  almost  inevitable  refuta- 
tion. Ever  more  clearly  must  our  age  of  science  realize  that 
any  relation  between  a  material  and  a  spiritual  world  cannot 
be  an  ethical  or  emotional  relation  alone ;  that  it  must  needs  be 
a  great  structural  fact  of  the  universe,  involving  laws  at  least 
as  persistent  and  identical  from  age  to  age  as  our  known 
laws  of  energy  or  of  motion." 

Ill 

Let  us  then  look  at  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from 
the  point  of  view  not  of  that  which  could  not  be,  but 
of  that  which,  not  antecedently  impossible,  was  or 
was  not  according  to  reliability  of  evidence.  Im- 
mediately we  see  that  we  are  by  no  means  so  stricken 


224  THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

with  poverty  of  such  evidence  as  it  has  sometimes 
been  alleged.  The  oldest  documents  which  we  have 
in  Christianity,  the  letters  of  Paul,  center  about  the 
fact  and  describe  the  evidence  on  which  Paul  ac- 
cepted it.  This  is  by  no  means  that  of  one  person, 
but  of  hundreds  of  persons,  most  of  whom  still  lived 
at  the  time  when  Paul  wrote.  The  stories  of  the 
resurrection  in  the  gospels  must  have  originated 
during  the  lifetime  of  those  very  persons  who  could 
have  denied  their  existence.  And  it  is  to  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  sources  of  these  gospel  records  of  the 
resurrection-faith  are  not  derived  one  from  the  other, 
but  are  almost  without  exception  independent  of 
each  other,  thus  representing  the  faith  of  Chris- 
tians scattered  over  a  very  wide  geographical 
area. 

I.  If  we  start  with  that  which  is  no  longer  seriously 
denied  even  by  negative  critics,  viz.  that  the  early 
Christians  honestly  believed  they  had  seen  Jesus 
after  his  crucifixion,  the  only  really  vital  question 
before  us  is  whether  or  not  they  were  deceived.  At 
this  point  a  man  is  certain  to  turn  to  his  presupposi- 
tions. If  one  believes  that  it  is  more  probable  that 
they  were  deceived  than  that  they  saw  what  they 
said  they  saw,  the  argumejii  is  closed,  except  as  one 
may  attack  that  major  premise  by  asking :  Why  is  it 


THE    DELIVERANCE    FROM    DEATH  225 

more  improbable?  The  answer  can  only  be,  be- 
cause it  is  contrary  to  the  ordinary  run  of  human  ex- 
perience —  and  we  are  back  again  on  the  ground  of 
Hume ;  a  position  which  as  I  have  tried  to  show  is 
steadily  growing  less  tenable.  How,  if  there  were  no 
facts  to  warrant  its  rise,  are  we  to  account  for  this 
faith  of  the  disciples  —  a  faith  which  antedates  the 
organization  of  the  church ;  a  faith  which  is  older  than 
any  Christian  theology ;  a  faith  which  grew  up  in  the 
midst  of  the  very  generation  and  in  the  very  city  in 
which  the  events  were  believed  to  have  taken  place  ? 
2.  There  have  been  a  variety  of  hypotheses  with 

which  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  belief.     We  have 

I 
been  told  that  Jesus  was  not  dead;    that  he  simply i 

I 
swooned  and  was  brought  to  consciousness  in  the  cool  ■ 

tomb.     But  this  involves  so  many  difficulties  as  to 

have  been  abandoned  by  all  serious  students. 

We  have  been  told  that  the  disciples  deliberately  i 
concocted  the  story  for  selfish  ends.     This,  too,  has  | 
passed  away  as  lying  outside  of  that  which  is  reason- 
able. 

We  have  been  told  that  the  Egyptians  believed  in 
the  resurrection  of  Osiris  and  the  Syrians  in  the  resur- 
rection of  Tammuz,  and  the  Assyrians  in  the  recall^ 
of  Ishtah's  husband  from  Sheol. 

We  have  had  the  disciples'  belief  referred  to  sun 

Q 


226         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

myths  and  spring  myths,  and  in  fact  to  every  sort 
of  myth  that  the  student  of  comparative  religion 
has  been  able  to  discover.  Just  at  present  we  have  as 
a  suggested  explanation  that  the  belief  in  the  resur- 
rection was  due  to  a  combination  in  the  disciples' 
minds  of  auto-suggestion,  religious  faith,  value 
judgments,  mob  psychology,  and  the  messianic  hope, 
the  hypothesis  being  buttressed  by  reference  to 
legends  as  to  the  alleged  resurrections  of  Saints. 

3.  I  do  not  think  I  underestimate  the  difficulties 
which  lie  in  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  as  an  histori- 
cal fact.  I  am  not  prepared  to  deny  that  there  may 
be  secondary  additions  in  the  gospels  as  they  now 
stand ;  but  after  all  reasonable  allowance  has  been 
made,  after  the  story  of  the  resurrection  has  been 
brought  to  its  oldest  form  as  we  find  it  in  the  Pauline 
documents,  I  must  frankly  say  that  for  me  all  of  these 
explanations  are  more  difficult  than  that  which  they 
would  explain.  They  refuse  in  the  first  place  to 
acknowledge  in  Jesus,  in  whom  men  find  the  worth 
of  God,  any  more  power  than  they  see  in  Socrates; 
in  the  second  place  they  assume  that  it  is  impossible 
for  any  communication  between  the  dead  and  the 
living  to  take  place ;  in  the  third  place  they  practically 
assume  that  immortality  in  itself  is  an  open  question ; 
and  in  the  fourth  place  they  assume  that  it  would 


THE    DELIVERANCE    FROM    DEATH  227 

have  been  possible  for  hundreds  of  men  and  women 
so  to  deceive  themselves,  not  consciously,  but  from 
the  excess  of  love  and  faith,  as  to  believe  that  the 
one,  who  had  disappointed  all  their  hopes,  had  given 
the  lie  to  their  messianic  expectations,  and  had  become 
the  victim  of  their  enemies,  had  appeared  after  death, 
had  ascended  to  God,  and  was  to  come  again  to 
establish  the  kingdom  which  he  had  once  failed  to 
establish.  And  finally,  as  if  to  intensify  the  diffi- 
culties, they  insist  that  the  faith  thus  cruelly  defeated 
was  so  strong  that  when  its  possessors  came  together 
it  developed  an  auto-suggestion  which  was  visualized 
into  a  form  so  distinct  and  commanding  as  to  become 
the  basis  of  a  religion.  For  my  own  part,  in  view  of 
the  weakening  of  the  antecedent  improbability  of 
personal  immortality,  I  would  rather  make  a  working 
hypothesis  of  the  disciples'  experiences  as  trustworthy 
rather  than  of  such  highly  subjective  conjectures, 
however  much  they  may  claim  the  support  of  a 
scientific  vocabulary. 

And  this  conviction  is  strengthened  as  one  recalls 
that  the  chief  witness,  Paul,  who  claims  to  have  seen 
Jesus  himself,  was  himself  subject  to  visions.  He 
therefore  knew  the  difference  between  an  experience 
of  the  risen  Christ  and  those  other  experiences,  such 
as  that  one  in  which  he  is  said  to  have  been  caught 


228         THE    GOSPEL    AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

up  in  the  third  heaven.  In  fact,  the  entire  history 
of  the  apostolic  church  affords  data  which  make  it 
evident  that  the  very  persons  who  believed  in  visions 
and  dreams  made  a  distinction  between  such  ex- 
perience and  the  appearance  of  the  risen  Christ. 
They  were,  so  to  speak,  connoisseurs  in  visions,  and 
their  testimony  to  the  fact  that  their  experiences  of 
Jesus  were  more  objective  than  that  of  their  visions  is 
in  a  fashion  that  of  experts.  ■ 

IV 

But  in  what  did  they  believe  these  experiences 
consisted?  In  other  words,  what  does  the  gospel 
mean  by  the  resurrection? 

I.  The  point  of  departure  for  any  investigation  of 
such  a  difficult  matter  is  the  writings  of  Paul,  particu- 
larly the  fifteenth  chapter  of  i  Corinthians  and  the 
fifth  chapter  of  2  Corinthians.  From  these  chapters 
it  is  apparent  that  Paul  did  not  believe  that  the  Jesus 
who  appeared  to  him  was  flesh  and  blood.  Flesh 
and  blood,  he  declares,  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God.  It  is  also  apparent  that  he  finds  it  impossible  to 
give  even  a  quasi-scientific  description  of  what  the 
body  of  the  resurrection  is  to  be.  For  when  that  ques- 
tion is  raised  he  at  once  proceeds  to  argue  by  analogy 
that  it   is  to  be  different  from   the   body  that    is 


THE    DELIVERANCE    FROM    DEATH  229 

"sown."  More  positively  he  declares  it  to  be  a  spir- 
itual body. 

In  their  present  forms,  our  gospels  are  later  than 
the  writings  of  Paul,  and  in  all  four  we  have  accounts 
which  are  much  more  concrete.  The  difference 
between  their  views  and  the  views  of  Paul  must  have 
been  as  evident  to  the  early  Christians  as  they  are  to 
us,  but  would  doubtless  be  explained  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  Jesus  who  appeared  to  Paul  was  the 
Jesus  who  had  ascended  to  heaven,  while  the  Jesus 
who  appeared  to  the  disciples  on  the  first  Easter 
and  during  the  forty  days  had  not  yet  ''ascended  to 
the  Father."  And  such  a  view  has  at  least  this  justi- 
fication :  if  the  Jesus  who  had  appeared  to  Paul  had 
been  in  precisely  the  same  form  as  the  Jesus  who  is 
reported  to  have  appeared  to  Mary  Magdalene  and 
Peter,  it  is  probable  that  when  he  raised  the  question 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  spiritual  body  Paul  would 
have  referred  directly  to  the  body  of  that  Jesus  who 
was  to  him  the  first  fruits  of  those  who  sleep. 

Yet  the  words  of  Paul  are  not  altogether  out  of 
harmony  with  those  of  the  four  gospels,  and  any  his- 
torical method  must  proceed  from  those  elements 
which  are  common  to  all  the  gospels  to  those  which 
are  peculiar  to  different  narratives.  Any  resulting 
discrepancies  may  then  be  tested  by  the  Pauline  con- 
ception as  that  which  is  critically  the  oldest. 


230         THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

2.  In  such  a  procedure  it  becomes  at  once  apparent 
that  all  of  the  gospels  look  upon  the  risen  Jesus  as 
possessed  of  certain  powers  quite  unlike  those  pos- 
sessed by  him  before  death.  True,  the  gospels  con- 
ceive some  sort  of  identity  between  the  body  of  the 
risen  Jesus  and  the  body  that  was  laid  in  the  tomb, 
and  to  this  the  position  taken  by  Paul  in  i  Corinthians 
can  hardly  be  said  to  be  opposed.  But  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  was  not  of  a  sort  with  the  raising  from 
the  dead  of  Jairus'  daughter  and  the  widow's  son  and 
Lazarus.  In  each  of  these  three  cases  we  have  not 
resurrection  but  simply  the  reanimation  of  the  old 
life.  Every  one  of  the  three  was  to  die  again.  In  the 
case  of  Jesus,  however,  the  resurrection  was  not  to  be 
followed  by  death  and  was  more  than  reanimation. 
It  involved  some  sort  of  passage  from  the  purely 
physical  to  a  higher  form  of  life  less  subject  to  the 
limitations  of  the  physical  world,  more  personal  be- 
cause more  spiritual. 

It  is  customary  among  some  scholars  to  make  a 
sharp  distinction  between  the  mode  of  existence  of 
Jesus  during  the  fort>'  days  subsequent  to  his  resur- 
rection and  that  mode  in  which  he  is  believed  now  to 
be  existing.  That  is  to  say,  they  regard  the  forty 
days  as  a  period  of  gradual  transformation  of  the 
body  from  the  fleshly  to  the  spiritual  body.     The 


THE    DELIVERANCE    FROM    DEATH  23 1 

modem  man  is  likely  to  be  critical  of  such  a  hy- 
pothesis, and  yet  if  he  once  asserts  that  the  faith  of  the 
New  Testament  is  not  wholly  one  of  misapprehension 
he  must  at  least  treat  it  with  respect ;  for  it  is  an  at- 
tempt at  constructive  theory.  On  the  one  side,  al- 
though the  empty  tomb  does  not  seem  to  be  absolutely 
demanded  by  the  Pauline  conception  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, it  is  clear  enough  that  the  earliest  stratum  of  the 
resurrection  hope  presupposed  a  belief  that  the  body 
had  disappeared.  But  by  whom  was  it  removed? 
The  ancient  tradition  is  that  the  Pharisees  charged 
the  disciples  with  removing  it;  but  such  a  charge 
is  absurd  on  the  face  of  it.  Did  then  the  Pharisees 
remove  it?  So  some  claim.  But  what  was  to  be 
gained  by  such  an  act?  It  is,  of  course,  true  that 
a  priori  argument  at  a  distance  of  nineteen  hundred 
years  is  precarious,  but  the  difficulty  of  explaining 
away  the  ancient  belief  in  the  empty  tomb  should  at 
least  suggest  some  hesitation  on  the  part  of  those 
men  who  would  summarily  wash  the  entire  matter 
off  the  slate  of  history. 

The  fundamental  fact  is  that  the  early  disciples  had 
some  sort  of  experience  of  Jesus  after  his  death. 
This  simple  fact  is  as  evangelic  as  it  seems  critically 
assured.  It  is  impossible  for  me,  with  what  knowledge 
I  have  been  able  to  gain  of  the  pre-Christian  messi- 


232         THE    GOSPEL    AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

anic  hope,  to  see  how  the  belief  in  the  resurrection 
could  have  sprung  from  the  disciples'  faith  in  Jesus 
as  Christ.  Rather  the  contrary  is  true.  Facts 
compelled  the  belief;  it  was  not  created  by  the  faith. 
When  it  comes,  however,  to  the  shaping  up  of  any 
absolutely  self-consistent  explanation  as  to  what  these 
experiences  really  were,  it  is  mere  elemental  honesty 
to  say  that  such  explanation  lies  beyond  our  power. 
We  certainly  cannot  uncritically  mass  the  gospel  ac- 
counts into  such  a  theory.  At  any  rate  no  scholar 
has  ever  succeeded  in  the  attempt.  But  such  an  im- 
possibility, I  am  sure,  arises  from  our  ignorance  of 
the  soul  and  the  nature  of  human  personality  on  the 
one  side  and  the  whole  field  of  supernormal  experi- 
ence on  the  other.  If  it  should  ever  be  shown  more 
clearly  than  it  is  to-day  that  in  certain  nervous  condi- 
tions human  beings  are  unusually  susceptible  to 
super-physical  influences,  we  might  in  such  a  fact 
find  a  clew  that  would  be  worth  following.  At  all 
events  it  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  in  any  way  un- 
likely that  some  partial  hypothesis  will  some  day  be 
forthcoming.  In  the  meantime  it  is  not  necessary 
to  wait  upon  the  invention  of  new  terms  or  the  ability 
to  explain  fully  an  experience  that  is  well  attested 
as  actual  historical  fact. 

4.  It  is  sometimes  argued  that  the  belief  in  the 


THE   DELIVERANCE    FROM   DEATH  233 

resurrection  of  Jesus  as  anything  more  than  a  purely 
subjective  experience  carries  with  it  corresponding 
belief  in  the  "levitation"  of  Jesus.  Undoubtedly 
such  is  a  possible  inference  from  the  New  Testament 
records,  but  after  all  the  sting  of  "levitation"  lies  in 
the  belief  that  the  early  Christian  Church  held  to  a 
physical  disappearance  of  a  flesh  and  bone  Jesus 
in  heaven.  That  is  to  be  denied.  ''Resurrection" 
and  '' ascension"  are  not  identical  turns.  It  was  not 
the  earthly  body  Jesus  that  disappeared  in  heaven, 
according  to  the  faith  of  the  early  disciples;  it  was  the 
transformed  body.  Even  if  they  regarded  the  resur- 
rection at  its  inception  as  physical,  the  ascended  Christ 
was  the  Lord  the  Spirit.  This  may  not  make  the  mat- 
ter any  more  scientifically  intelligible,  but  it  certainly 
makes  the  primitive  faith  self-consistent.  How- 
ever we  may  account  for  the  story  of  the  ascension 
it  is  undeniable  that  in  a  few  weeks  (except  in  the  case 
of  Paul)  the  experiences  of  the  risen  Christ  ceased 
and  in  their  place  came  that  spiritual  enthusiasm 
and  invigoration  which  the  New  Testament  calls  the 
''gift  of  the  Spirit." 

5.  In  any  conclusion  it  is  well  to  call  to  mind  that  in 
the  expectation  of  the  early  church  the  remarkable 
thing  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  not  that  he 
alone  of  all  mankind  was  to  experience  that  great 


234         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN    MAN 

change.  All  the  Christians  expected  the  same  in  the 
Day  of  Judgment.  The  really  remarkable  thing  was 
that  he  had  showed  himself  alive  after  his  passion  to 
his  followers;  that  is  to  say,  before  the  Day  of  Judg- 
ment which  they  expected,  he  had  had  power  suffi- 
cient to  break  across  the  boundary  of  death  and  to 
impress  himself  in  some  way  upon  those  who  were 
in  particularly  sympathetic  relationship  with  him. 
In  him  the  triumph  of  the  spiritual  life  is  seen  in  the 
realm  of  physical  forces  as  it  had  been  already  seen  in 
the  realm  of  morals.  As  Paul  so  strikingly  declared, 
he  had  brought  life  and  incorruption  to  light. 

V 

I.  It  must  be  admitted  that  such  a  position  as  this 
which  I  have  outlined,  with  its  frank  admission  of  in- 
ability to  form  a  scientifically  precise  statement  as  to 
the  actual  nature  of  the  resurrection,  may  serve  to 
disbar  it  from  acceptance  by  those  who  on  the  one 
hand  find  no  difficulty  in  taking  the  New  Testament 
stories  at  their  face  value,  and  on  the  other  by  those 
who  refuse  to  accept  testimony  as  to  any  fact  which 
does  not  permit,  through  experimentation,  undoubted 
and  complete  correlation  with  our  existing  knowledge. 
Like  all  attempts  at  finding  the  common  divisor  in 
conflicting  evidence,  it  is  likely  to  be  rejected  by 


THE    DELIVERANCE    FROM    DEATH  235 

divergent  parties.  But  after  all  what  does  the  reli- 
gious man  really  demand  in  the  case?  Can  he  not 
believe  in  the  genuineness  of  some  sort  of  a  well- 
attested  experience  of  Jesus  on  the  part  of  disciples 
without  knowing  whether  the  risen  Master  ate  fish 
or  kindled  a  fire?  The  sublime  truth  that  stands 
out  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  the  emancipation 
of  the  spiritual  life  from  the  physical  order  as 
culminating  in  death,  not  information  as  to  physio- 
logical details. 

Even  those  scholars  who  now  doubt  the  explana- 
tion given  by  the  apostles  to  their  undoubtedly  his- 
torical experience  are  at  one  in  insisting  that  their 
own  confidence  in  immortality  is  largely  derived 
from  the  gospel  message;  and  that  is  something 
which  is  not  to  be  underestimated.  The  story  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  is  not  meant  to  satisfy  our 
human  lust  for  wonders.  Negative  and  constructive 
critics  are  one  at  the  essential  point  that  the  gospel 
brings  new  confidence  in  the  purpose  and  goal  of 
human  development.  Immortality  in  the  Christian 
sense  does  not  mean  that  human  life  simply  takes  up 
its  old  interests.  It  means  a  new  birth  upward; 
a  new  advance,  a  new  stage  of  human  evolution ;  a 
freer  and  more  complete  spiritual  personality. 

2.  From  the  point  of  view  of  evolution  something 


236         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

like  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  seems  to  be  demanded. 
For,  as  has  already  been  said,  the  course  of  evolution 
has  not  been  simply  towards  the  production  of  new 
species.  It  is  rather  towards  the  production  of  de- 
creasingly  animal  and  consequently  increasingly  free 
spiritual  individuality.  It  is  at  this  point  that  the 
gospel  appears  to  give  significance  to  the  process. 
In  a  sense  almost  startlingly  true,  Jesus  is  a  second 
Adam.  As  the  first  man  marked  the  rise  of  the  new 
type  of  individual  above  the  brute,  so  Jesus  reveals  the 
completion  of  the  next  step  ahead  in  the  process  of  the 
development  of  the  spiritual  individual.  The  a  priori 
probability  that  there  should  develop  some  life 
through  its  identity  with  the  End  of  the  spiritual  order 
made  strong  enough  to  conquer  the  conditions  set  by 
our  physical  limitations,  is  met  by  the  message  that 
such  a  life  has  appeared.  The  a  priori  probability 
meets  the  historical. 

It  is  from  this  union  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
as  more  than  the  creation  of  the  faith  of  the  dis- 
ciples becomes  of  real  significance  to  the  modem  man. 
He  will  find  difficulties  in  some  of  the  details  of  the 
record,  but  in  the  larger  probability  that  such  a  per- 
sonality as  that  of  Jesus,  so  obviously  at  the  pinnacle 
of  human  moral  development,  should  have  had  power 
to  express  itself  as  triumphantly  over  the  ultimate 


THE    DELIVERANCE    FROM    DEATH  237 

collapse  of  physical  nature  as  over  the  temptations 
due  to  that  physical  nature,  he  will  find  a  new  help  for 
his  interpretation  of  his  own  deepest  longings  and  an 
answer  to  that  tragic  question  which  we  all  face  as  to 
the  meaning  of  our  life.  The  gospel  is  a  message 
of  salvation  not  only  in  that  it  helps  a  man  to  be  free 
from  sin,  but  in  that  it  interprets  and  even  glorifies 
that  all  too  seemingly  relentless  process  in  which  we 
find  ourselves  involved.  We  do  not  believe  in  im- 
mortality simply  because  we  believe  in  the  story  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  but  with  that  story  immortality 
gains  a  new  value.  We  do  not  ground  morality  on 
immortality  as  such,  but  on  the  spiritual  quality  of  life 
that  can  eventuate  in  such  a  triumph  over  anti- 
personal  forces  as  we  see  in  the  case  of  Jesus.  The 
resurrection  is  not  something  which  must  be  believed 
in  addition  to  that  which  we  do  believe,  but  with 
the  weakening  of  the  a  priori  objections  against  it,  it 
may  become  what  indeed  the  early  church  and  in  fact 
Christians  of  the  centuries  have  claimed  it  to  be  — 
a  means  of  bringing  life  and  incorruption  to  light; 
a  demonstration  of  the  finality  of  the  life  of  love. 

And  unless  I  greatly  mistake,  the  modem  world  is  in 
serious  danger  of  losing  that  estimate  of  the  worth  of 
the  spiritual  life  which  is  given  by  the  gospel  with  its 
insistence  upon  resurrection.  With  the  assurance  that 


238         THE    GOSPEL    AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

the  evidence  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  affords,  a 
modern  man  sees  new  significance  in  the  ever  present 
moral  struggle,  gets  new  estimates  of  the  worth  of  the 
life  of  love  and  sacrifice,  and  a  larger  and  more  com- 
pelling impulse  to  reproduce  in  his  daily  living  that 
supreme  life  in  the  spirit  which  was  lived  by  Jesus 
himself.  He  sees  new  meaning  in  the  process  in 
which  he  finds  himself  involved,  new  hopes  for  the 
race  about  which  he  had  almost  despaired.  He 
realizes  as  he  otherwise  never  could  realize  the  mean- 
ing of  God's  presence  in  his  world,  and  experiences 
as  he  otherwise  never  would  experience  the  regenera- 
tion that  comes  to  him  who  dares  let  God  transform 
his  being.  He  will  have  many  questions  —  his  very 
joy  will  prompt  him  to  seek  ever  more  completely 
the  meaning  of  the  new  life  he  lives.  But  of  one  thing 
he  will  be  assured :  a  reasonable  gospel  of  deliverance 
from  death  —  not  from  dying  —  to  him  as  to  every 
one  who  believes,  whether  he  be  modem  or  otherwise, 
will  prove  itself  to  be  a  message  of  inspiration  and 
a  moral  dynamic.  He  will  be  less  easily  wearied  in 
well-doing  as  he  sees  that  his  labor  is  not  in  vain  in 
the  Lord. 


PART   III 
THE   POWER   OF   THE   GOSPEL 

CHAPTER   VIII 

THE   TEST   OF   LIFE 

In  our  discussion  thus  far,  we  have  been  concerned 
not  so  much  with  proving  that  the  gospel  is  true  in 
itself  as  that  it  is  reasonable  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  modem  man  who  recognizes  the  presence  of 
God  in  his  universe  and  trusts  the  impulses  and 
potencies  of  his  own  spiritual  life  to  seek  foundation 
and  reenforcement  in  God.  In  the  great  struggle 
between  culture  and  faith,  —  a  struggle  that  ought 
never  to  have  arisen,  but  which  ever  since  the  days  of 
Goethe  has  been  waged  with  unceasing  energy  — 
two  lines  of  strategy  have  been  followed  by  the  leaders 
of  Christian  thought.  The  one  has  been  the  direct 
defense  of  the  Christian  revelation  in  itself;  the  other 
has  been  the  establishment  of  the  reasonableness  of 
the  act  and  attitude  of  Christian  faith.  Both  have 
had  their  victories,  but  in  our  present  day  the  second 
line  of   defense  is  the  more  effective.     Whatever 

239 


240         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

may  be  true  of  the  metaphysical  arguments  for  the 
existence  of  God  and  for  the  nature  of  the  Trinity, 
Christian  faith  itself  can  be  justified.  Its  champion 
can  hopefully  leave  to  the  metaphysician  the  task 
of  proving  truths  that  lie  beyond  experience;  he 
himself  can  show  that  it  is  reasonable  to  exercise 
faith  in  God.  The  t^^o  lines  of  argument  will 
doubtless  meet;  they  are  by  no  means  mutually 
exclusive.  But  nevertheless  the  modem  man  finds 
the  religious  and  practical  argument  more  in  accord 
with  his  hard-won  anti-metaphysical  temper. 

If  our  task  has  been  in  any  way  fulfilled,  it  has 
appeared  that  the  gospel  of  the  New  Testament 
when  once  seen  in  its  elements  and  systematized  by 
the  modem  equivalents  of  its  original  coordinating 
concepts,  is  consistent  with  those  other  facts  and 
presuppositions  which  the  modem  man  has  come  to 
accept.  But  it  might  appear  that  the  gospel  was 
left,  as  it  were,  in  stable  equilibrium.  A  further 
step  must  be  taken.  The  gospel  must  not  appear  to 
be  merely  tenable;  it  must  be  seen  to  have  power. 
''The  man  of  science,"  says  Huxley  somewhere, 
''has  leamed  to  believe  in  justification,  not  by  faith 
but  by  verification."  Verification  means  experiment, 
the  demonstration  of  practicability.  If  the  gospel  is 
to  be  a  message  of  deliverance,   it  must  deliver. 


THE   TEST   OF   LIFE  24I 

I 

The  evidence  of  practical  accomplishment  has  al- 
ways been  claimed  for  Christian  teaching.  As 
far  back  as  the  early  apologists  we  find  Aristides  ap- 
pealing eloquently  to  the  great  philosopher-Emperor 
to  acknowledge  the  Christians  as  taxpayers  and 
loyal  citizens.  The  unknown  writer  of  the  beautiful 
epistle  to  Diognetus  declares  that  the  Christians  are 
to  the  world  what  the  soul  is  to  the  body.  Through- 
out the  succeeding  centuries  the  defender  of  Christian- 
ity has  always  found  a  great  argument  in  the  effect 
of  Christian  faith  upon  conduct,  while  the  historian 
has  recognized  the  influence  of  the  church  in  the 
formation  of  European  civilization. 

Of  late  however  the  test  has  somewhat  changed  its 
character.  The  importance  of  religion  as  an  expres- 
sion of  human  nature,  at  least  in  certain  of  its  stages  of 
development,  is  admitted,  but  for  various  reasons 
religion,  and  particularly  the  Christian  religion  as 
expressed  in  the  gospel,  is  judged  not  altogether 
practicable  or  adapted  to  our  modern  life.  Let  us 
look  first  at  two  general  grounds  for  doubting  the 
practicability  of  the  gospel. 

I.  It  is  argued  that  Christianity  is  an  oriental 
religion,  and  accordingly  is  ill  adapted  to  the  West- 
em  world. 


242         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

The  general  dififerences  between  oriental  and  occi- 
dental minds  are  well  known,  at  least  in  so  far  as 
religions  are  concerned.  The  East  is  said  to  be  more 
meditative  and  mystic,  the  West  more  practical.  But 
the  distinction  certainly  does  not  apply  to  the  gospel, 
true  as  it  is  of  the  teaching  of  the  great  Indian  litera- 
tures. The  gospel  may  have  originated  in  Palestine, 
but  it  is  not  oriental  in  character.  Nor  would  any 
man  who  respects  the  definitions  of  his  terms  char- 
acterize the  Hebrew  thought  as  philosophic.  It 
was  intensely  practical.  The  prophets  never  specu- 
lated; they  counseled  action.  The  Jews  since 
Ezra's  time  have  never  been  out  and  out  orientals; 
they  have  been  cosmopolitan.  So,  too,  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  there  is  hardly  a  sentence  that  can  in  any 
sense  be  said  to  be  merely  philosophical.  Jesus  is 
more  a  prophet  and  poet  than  one  who  reflects  over 
the  nature  of  things.  The  Fourth  Gospel,  it  is  true, 
moves  out  into  a  little  different  atmosphere,  but  it  is 
largely  a  rsworking  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  by  the 
evangelist,  and  even  then  it  is  far  more  akin  to  the 
philosophy  of  the  West  than  it  is  to  the  philosophy  of 
the  East.  The  Logos  doctrine  was  the  bequest  of  the 
Greek.  I  do  not  doubt  that  at  some  points  the  orien- 
tal mind  may  discover  significance  in  Jesus'  words 
that  might  elude  the  less  intuitive  thinking  of  our 


THE    TEST    OF    LIFE  243 

modern  world.  But  I  fail  to  see  any  serious  limita- 
tions which  are  set  upon  the  occidental  interpretation 
of  the  gospel  on  the  ground  that  it  is  an  oriental 
product.  Compare  the  gospel  of  Mark  with  the 
Bhagavad  Gita  and  then,  if  you  can,  say  they  are 
of  the  same  spirit. 

2.  A  far  more  serious  objection  to  the  gospel  on 
the  side  of  practical  living  is  that  it  is  excessively 
individualistic. 

It  is  a  little  difficult  for  me  to  appreciate  the  force 
of  this  objection.  The  individualism  which  the 
gospel  inculcates  is  farthest  possible  from  that 
insulated  individualism  set  forth  in  certain  phases 
of  Christian  theology  and  particularly  in  oriental 
philosophies.  According  to  these  latter  teachings, 
perfection  is  to  be  reached  by  the  complete  with- 
drawal of  men  from  social  life,  by  defrauding  all  the 
social  impulses.  The  individualism  of  the  gospel, 
paradoxical  as  it  may  seem,  is  social.  A  man  is  to 
reach  his  fullest  self-expression  in  the  altruistic  life 
of  love.  That  life  alone  can  be  reenforced  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Salvation,  in  the  terms  of  the  New 
Testament,  consists  in  possessing  the  quality  of  life 
which  constitutes  a  man's  being  a  member  of  the 
kingdom  of  God;  and  the  kingdom  of  God,  no 
matter    how    eschatological     it    may    have    been 


244         THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    MODERN    MAN 

regarded  by  the  Jews  and  the  early  Christians,  was 
a  social  order. 

The  claim  that  the  gospel  induces  excessive  in- 
dividualism is  true  only  of  that  perverted  applica- 
tion of  its  message  which  would  insist  that  a  man 
reaches  his  salvation  in  other  w?.ys  than  those  set 
by  the  gospel  itself.  No  man  can  fail  to  honor  those 
noble  misrepresentations  of  Christian  self-sacrifice 
which  led  men  and  women  to  abandon  family,  and 
city,  and  country,  and  seek  peace  with  their  God  as 
hermits.  He  will  not  altogether  decry  that  search 
for  an  individualistic  salvation  that  seeks  heaven 
with  its  blessings  rather  than  hell  with  its  pains. 
For  even  thus  men  have  been  led  to  a  service  to 
society  in  almsgiving  and  homely  helpfulness. 
The  evidence,  however,  of  the  unnaturalness  of  the 
Christianity  which  such  conduct  involves  is  to  be 
seen  in  the  fact  that  such  men  and  women  so  fre- 
quently slip  over  the  border  line  into  eccentricity, 
or  spiritual  pride  and  unfraternal  condescension. 
Christianity  in  so  far  as  it  has  attempted  to  repro- 
duce the  real  spirit  of  the  gospel  has  made  toward 
democracy.  This  in  itself  is  an  evidence  that  the 
individualism  which  it  inculcates  has  its  social  ele- 
ment. The  more  other-worldly  the  Puritan  was, 
the  more  did  he  insist  on  town  meetings.     History 


THE    TEST    OF   LIFE 


245 


is  punctuated  by  those  self-sacrificing  groups  of 
men  who  have  attempted  to  live  in  some  form  a 
communistic  life  in  accordance  with  what  seemed  to 
them  to  be  the  real  principles  of  the  individual's 
life  in  the  spirit. 

And,  after  all,  is  not  the  gospel,  just  because  it 
does  magnify  a  true  sort  of  individualism,  much 
closer  to  the  nature  of  things  than  if  it  sought  to 
subordinate  the  individual  to  society?  Which  is 
truer  to  fact  —  that  the  individual  exists  for  the 
benefit  of  society  or  that  society  is  a  part  of  that 
situation  in  which  the  individual  may  reach  his 
most  completely  personal  self-expression?  To  my 
mind  there  can  be  only  one  answer  to  such  ques- 
tion. The  entire  process  of  history  seems  to  be  the 
development  of  the  free  personality  as  over  against 
the  production  of  a  new  society.  Religion  may  be 
described  as  the  voluntary  anticipation  of  the  next 
stage  of  this  process  whose  goal  is  the  perfected 
spiritual  individual,  through  personal  union  with  God. 

But  the  gospel  of  freedom  is  not  to  be  taken  too 
literally.  If  men  are  not  twins  because  they  are 
brothers,  so  in  the  larger  fraternity  of  the  spirit, 
they  are  not  free  from  limitations  set  by  the  neces- 
sity of  living  in  social  groups.  Society  in  the  best 
sense  of  the  word  is  a  means  to  freedom.     One 


246         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

cannot  read  the  works  of  Tolstoi  without  feeling  that 
in  his  reaction  against  the  conception  of  govern- 
ment to  which  he  as  a  Russian  is  accustomed,  he 
has  overlooked  the  social  element  in  the  free  per- 
sonality. Cooperation  among  individuals  is  in- 
volved in  a  personal  environment.  The  anti- 
governmental  teachings  of  Tolstoi,  serviceable  as 
they  are  as  an  antidote  to  mere  conventionality,  can 
never  become  anything  more  than  a  sort  of  season- 
ing in  our  social  life.  A  truer  conception  of  the 
gospel  as  setting  forth  the  way  to  the  freedom  of  a 
social  individualism,  will  regard  it  as  the  real  leaven 
of  society. 

II 

If,  however,  apart  from  over-statement  we  consider 
the  practicability  of  the  gospel  as  a  message  of  a  free 
spiritual  life  in  a  changing  social  order  like  ours, 
we  certainly  face  a  most  serious  matter.  For  any 
teaching  that  lies  beyond  the  power  of  realization 
will  be  powerless  in  the  same  proportion  as  men 
realize  its  impracticability. 

There  confronts  us  at  the  very  outset  the  funda- 
mental question  as  to  whether  the  conceptions  upon 
which  the  ethics  of  the  gospel  rest  are  really  final. 
Is  the  life  of  love  and  sacrifice  the  noblest  sort  of 
life?     Such  a  question  will  doubtless  seem  absurd 


THE    TEST   OF    LIFE  247 

to  those  who  have  accepted  the  Christian  ideal  as 
a  social  convention.  Though  no  one  has  ever 
embodied  it  fully,  yet  the  consensus  of  opinion  in 
Christian  civilizations  has  been  that  the  ideal  of  love 
and  service,  even  at  the  expense  of  sacrifice,  is  really 
that  toward  which  humanity  should  strive.  On  this 
we  base  our  final  apologetic:  though  Jesus  —  and 
this  seems  to  me  the  Ultima  Thule  of  improbability, 
—  were  to  be  shown  never  to  have  existed,  the  values 
which  the  gospel  has  brought  into  life  would  be 
eternal. 

But  we  are  no  more  content  with  such  a  minimum 
of  defense  than  with  mere  conventionally  rhetorical 
praise.  If  the  gospel  is  to  remain  a  power  in  so- 
ciety it  involves  something  pretty  close  to  a  revolu- 
tion in  many  of  the  forms  of  our  life.  It  is  impera- 
tive that  those  who  claim  allegiance  to  it  should 
pause  long  enough  to  face  the  fundamental  ques- 
tions which  their  profession  of  loyalty  to  Jesus  in- 
volves. 

I.  There  are  those  who  insist  that  the  gospel  as 
an  ethical  ideal  is  imperfect  because  of  its  use  of 
reward  and  punishment. 

There  is  nothing  to  which  the  academic  ethicist 
is  so  opposed  as  to  rewards  and  punishments.  And 
his  opposition  is  justified  in  the  same  proportion  as 


248         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

those  terms  are  seen  to  stand  for  arbitrary  assign- 
ments of  fate  in  the  way  of  bribes  or  threats.  To 
urge  a  man  to  be  good  in  order  that  he  may  go  to 
heaven  and  not  go  to  hell  is  a  good  deal  like  telling 
your  boy  that  if  he  will  be  honest  you  will  give  him 
fifty  cents.  Virtue  like  honesty  may  be  the  best 
policy,  but  a  man  v/ho  is  virtuous  through  policy  is 
likely  to  be  vicious  when  he  judges  vice  the  best 
policy.  Further,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  in  certain 
stages  of  civilization  Christian  teachers  have  so  used 
this  appeal  as  to  shock  the  moral  sense  of  the  more 
intelligent  members  of  the  community. 

It  does  not  seem  to  me,  however,  that  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  reply  to  such  an  objection.  It  is  due  to  a 
misunderstanding  of  the  gospel  and  to  a  literalizing 
of  figures  of  speech.  Substitute  "genetic  outcomes" 
for  "rewards  and  punishment"  and  most  of  the 
difficulty  vanishes.  It  is  only  the  legalistic  con- 
ception of  ethics  which  gives  room  for  the  distortion 
of  gospel  teaching  to  which  objection  can  be  raised. 
And  the  gospel  knows  nothing  of  statutes.  It  knows 
only  personalities.  Its  purpose  is  to  get  men  saved, 
to  possess  a  quality  of  life,  not  external  goods,  whether 
in  terms  of  prosperity  or  heaven.  It  teaches  dis- 
tinctly that  evil  states  bring  suffering  and  that 
righteous  states  bring  joy  and  peace.      But  neither 


THE    TEST    OF    LIFE  249 

outcome  is  external  to  the  personality.  Each  is  in- 
volved genetically  as  an  outcome  of  states  of  ac- 
tivity. One  would  not  say  that  a  physician  was 
dealing  with  rewards  and  punishment  when  he  points 
out  that  one  course  of  action  involved  disease  and 
so  suffering,  or  that  another  course  of  action  involved 
health  and  so  physical  comfort.  Jesus  was  the  Great 
Physician.     The  gospel  is  his  prescription. 

2.  A  more  fundamental  objection,  however,  lies 
in  that  philosophy  to  which  Nietzsche  has  given 
vogue,  but  which  is  really  far  older  than  he.  Ac- 
cording to  Nietzsche  the  fundamental  principle  of  life 
is  the  "will  to  power."  That  is  the  precise  oppo- 
site of  love.  According  to  him,  there  are  two  sorts 
of  morality,  that  of  the  master  and  that  of  the  slave. 
Christian  morality  belongs  to  the  second.  It  puts 
a  premium  on  weakness,  and  through  its  care  for 
the  weaker  tends  to  restrain  the  fundamental  im- 
pulse of  life  to  master  environment,  both  personal 
and  impersonal,  and  must  therefore  lead  ultimately 
to  the  deterioration  of  the  race.  Above  all  moral 
conceptions  which  are  the  outgrowth  of  passing 
social  needs,  and  are  given  authority  by  religion, 
there  is  the  great  impulse  which,  beyond  all  stand- 
ards of  good  and  evil,  the  masters  of  the  race 
must  embody. 


250        THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

It  is  not  difficult  to  see  that,  despite  its  com- 
mendable emphasis  on  the  supreme  worth  of  per- 
sonality, such  a  conception  of  ethics  is  fundamen- 
tally hostile  to  the  one  elemental  presupposition  of 
the  gospel  that  the  universe  is  filled  with  love.  Even 
more  particularly  is  it  hostile  to  the  conceptions 
set  forth  in  the  teaching  and  death  of  Jesus.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  it  is  based  on  something  which 
is  true.  One  great  impulse  in  life  is  to  master  en- 
vironment, and  morality  and  religion  itself  lie  im- 
plicit in  this  impulse.  More  than  that,  even  with 
all  his  exaggeration,  Nietzsche  effectively  empha- 
sizes the  supremacy  of  the  free  spirit.  But  the 
whole  matter  centers  over  the  question  as  to  whether 
this  impulse  toward  mastery  is  the  only  impulse  in 
humanity.  Nietzsche  here  is  not  unlike  Rousseau. 
He  finds  his  standards  in  the  conditions  of  savagery 
or  low  civilization.  To  him  the  Germans  of  Taci- 
tus were  superior  to  the  Germans  of  to-day.  That 
is  to  say,  he  would  undo  the  entire  work  of  civiliza- 
tion as  tending  to  the  production  of  the  AppoUonian 
or  slave  morality. 

Now  it  is  quite  impossible  to  hold  that  civilization 
is  degeneration.  Granting  that  "will  to  power" 
is  a  fundamental  attribute  of  life,  it  seems  reductio 
ad  absurdum  to  hold  that  the  moment  that  power 


THE    TEST    OF    LIFE  25I 

begins  to  express  itself  in  the  conquest  of  nature, 
social  cooperation  to  conquer  those  things  which 
hold  the  savage  in  subjection  is  weakness.  But 
such  cooperation  leads  inevitably  to  ethical  codes. 
For  over  what  is  power  to  be  exercised?  Must  it 
be  simply  the  power  of  the  strong  man  over  other 
men?  May  not  the  highest  type  of  power  be  ex- 
pressed in  that  social  cooperation  which  lies  at  the 
basis  of  civilization  and  to  which  Christianity  has 
contributed?  We  can  readily  grant  that  there  have 
been  periods  in  history  and  that  there  have  been 
individuals  who  have  so  mistaken  the  call  to  sacri- 
fice as  to  make  sacrifice  an  end  to  itself.  But  the 
real  gospel  is  the  farthest  possible  from  asceticism, 
however  many  Christians  may  have  been  ascetics. 
Christianity  has  itself  a  call  to  power;  it  has  its  vic- 
tories. Only  they  are  the  victories  not  of  the 
physical  man  but  of  the  spiritual.  It  complements 
the  impulse  to  power  through  conquest  by  the  im- 
pulse to  power  toward  harmonization  with  already 
existing  personal  forces. 

In  such  a  contrast  between  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
and  the  teaching  of  Nietzsche  we  are  confronting  the 
fundamental  antithesis  that  lies  in  the  world  of  values. 
Self-expression  and  self-development  are  undoubted 
goods,  and  self-development  can  come  only  by  con- 


252         THE    GOSPEL   AND    THE    MODERN   MAN 

quest,  but  the  conquest  which  Christianity  insists 
upon  is  the  conquest  over  things  which  are  un- 
spiritual  and  impersonal ;  those  from  which  civiliza- 
tion constantly  tends  to  free  men.  It  would  insist 
that  the  power  which  must  come  to  human  life  shall 
be  the  power  which  comes  through  cooperation  with 
the  higher  forms  of  life.  Primitive  Germans  con- 
quered nature  by  killing  wild  animals;  civilized 
Germans  conquer  nature  by  breeding  cattle.  Primi- 
tive man  ruled  over  his  fellows  by  terrorizing  them 
into  physical  subjection;  in  the  Christian  comm^u- 
nity  the  individual  is  brought  into  subjection  through 
his  own  cooperation  with  the  social  will.  The  gos- 
pel recognizes  and  rationalizes  this  principle  by 
insisting  that  love  is  a  form  of  social  cooperation 
which  involves  sacrifice,  not  in  the  interest  of  self- 
repression,  but  in  the  interest  of  self-development 
along  more  potent,  more  personal,  because  less 
animalistic,  lines.  And  it  bases  its  imperative 
upon  its  belief  in  the  love  of  that  God  whose  spiritual 
life  conditions  all  spiritual  living.  The  two  con- 
ceptions of  power  placed  over  against  each  other 
mean  simply  this  :  reversion  to  ''  civilized  "  savagery 
or  advance  to  fraternity. 

3.    But  even  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  not 
ready  to  find  in  unloving  force  something  which  is 


THE   TEST   OF   LIFE  ^5^ 

superior  to  good  and  evil,  there  is  the  belief  that 
justice  is  superior  to  brotherhood.  Here  again  the 
question  at  issue  is  the  very  nature  of  the  gospel 
itself.  For  the  gospel  has  little  to  say  about  jus- 
tice and  very  much  to  say  about  brotherliness. 

The  appeal  to  justice  is  an  exceedingly  powerful 
motive.  But  it  is  an  appeal  that  needs  to  be  ana- 
lyzed. In  reality  there  are  two  attitudes  toward 
justice,  that  of  getting  and  that  of  giving.  The 
impulse  to  get  justice  is  not  evangelical;  the  im- 
pulse to  give  justice  is.  The  great  command  that 
Jesus  lays  upon  his  followers  is  not  to  have  their 
wrongs  righted  but  to  seek  to  right  the  wrongs  of 
others.  To  that  end  they  must  be  ready  to  sacri- 
fice, as  he  sacrificed. 

It  is  easy  enough  to  see  that  this  is  not  attractive 
doctrine,  and  that  it  cuts  across  some  of  the  in- 
herited elemental  passions  of  life.  Moreover,  the 
average  Christian  man  is  sometimes  apt  to  think 
that  when  he  seeks  his  own  selfish  will  he  is  really 
doing  the  will  of  God.  But  despite  the  difficulties 
of  realizing  its  ideal,  the  emphasis  laid  by  the  gospel 
upon  the  giving  of  justice,  rather  than  upon  the 
getting  of  justice,  is  consonant  with  life  as  we  know 
it.  Revolutions  have  seldom  if  ever  won  more 
rights  than  the  more  thoughtful  among  the  privi- 


254         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

leged  persons  of  the  time  would  have  been  ready  to 
grant.  How  much  farther  did  the  French  revolu- 
tion proceed  in  permanent  accomplishments  beyond 
the  rights  which  were  freely  surrendered  on  August 

4,  1789? 

Even  if  this  generalization  be  open  to  question,  it 
can  hardly  be  denied  that  to  grant  a  privilege  freely 
in  the  interest  of  giving  another  justice  is  certainly 
preferable  to  a  recourse  to  revolution.  But  to  give 
justice  is  brotherhood,  and  to  recognize  the  impera- 
tiveness of  such  an  act  is  to  testify  to  the  worth  of 
the  gospel's  estimate  of  sacrifice.  Brotherhood  is 
not  weakness;  it  is  simply  difficult.  Yet  in  the 
same  proportion  as  men  come  under  the  ideals  of 
the  gospel  does  it  become  operative.  Nor  does  there 
seem  to  be  any  social  condition  quite  beyond  its 
power.  Individuals,  it  is  true,  may  cling  to  privi- 
lege and  force  on  a  struggle  to  get  rights.  It  is  true 
also  that  time  is  requisite  for  fraternal  ideals  really 
to  become  operative  through  becoming  socialized. 
But  gradually  in  one  field  after  another  the  practical 
power  of  the  ideals  of  the  gospel  has  exhibited  itself. 
Slavery  was  certainly  a  serious  and  complicated 
problem,  yet  slavery  in  the  Roman  Empire  was 
abolished  in  the  same  proportion  as  Christianity 
got    control    of    the    slave-holding    classes.     It    is 


THE    TEST    OF   LIFE  255 

worth  while  to  remember  this  whenever  tempted  to 
think  despairingly  of  the  problems  set  by  our 
present  social  order. 

It  may  be  objected  that  to  get  justice  for  others  is 
altruistic ;  that  the  class  struggle  now  in  evidence  is 
not  a  struggle  on  the  part  of  the  leaders  for  their  own 
rights,  but  is  a  struggle  on  their  part  for  the  rights 
of  others.  And  this  is  true,  but  it  is  not  contrary 
to  the  gospel.  To  get  justice  for  others  by  com- 
pelling the  over-privileged  to  give  it  to  them  may 
be  the  very  quintessence  of  love,  and  in  so  far  the 
motives  of  champions  of  the  so-called  unprivileged 
masses  are  of  a  sort  with  that  which  the  gospel  de- 
clares to  be  the  very  quality  of  God.  The  sad 
thing  about  the  situation  is  that  such  champions 
should  be  necessary.  But  that  is  only  to  lament 
the  quality  of  human  nature  itself.  The  striking 
thing  is  that  at  all  periods  in  the  development  of 
Western  civilization  there  have  been  men  and  women 
who  have  thus  championed  the  weak  at  the  cost  of 
genuine  self-sacrifice.  They  have  not  always  allied 
themselves  with  Christian  churches.  Ofttimes  they 
have  found  in  the  Christian  church  the  very  persons 
whom  they  had  to  force  to  give  justice.  But  such 
facts  do  not  affect  the  fundamental  position  that,  in 
thus  seeking  to  get  rights  for  others  by  forcing  men 


256    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

to  give  justice  when  they  were  unwilling  to  be  fra- 
ternal, such  reformers  have  been  embodying  the 
spirit  of  Jesus  himself,  and  their  success  is  a  further 
argument  of  the  work  of  the  practicability  of  the 
gospel  message.  It  is  the  imprimatur  of  history 
upon  the  social  teaching  of  the  Good  Neighbor  on 
Calvary. 

4.  Again,  there  is  the  ordinary  man  —  and  with 
him  now  and  then  the  theologian  —  who  believes 
that   the   Sermon   on   the   Mount   is   unworkable. 

It  is  no  answer  to  say  that  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  is  not  the  gospel,  for  it  contains  the  ideals 
which  the  gospel  presupposes  as  the  final  ideals  of 
the  spiritual  life  it  undertakes  to  beget.  If  the  ideals 
Jesus  taught  are  altogether  beyond  realization; 
if  an  honest  attempt  to  put  them  into  our  social  life 
must  result  inevitably,  and  always  as  in  his  own 
case,  in  overwhelming  defeat  and  sorrow;  then  it 
may  as  well  be  admitted  that  they,  and  the  gospel 
that  heralds  them  as  the  realization  of  the  final  will 
of  God,  are  unfitted  to  humanity.  No  religious 
message  can  deserve  acceptance  that  promises  only 
an  endless  suffering  bom  of  ideals  perpetually 
maladjusted  to  social  evolution. 

Unless  I  utterly  mistake,  it  is  at  this  point  that 
the  final  test  of  the  gospel  has  been  made  at  different 


THE    TEST    OF    LIFE  257 

stages  of  the  history  of  civilization  and  it  will  be  at 
this  point  that  the  final  verdict  will  be  given  in  our 
day.  The  real  issues  which  the  gospel  faces  lie 
among  the  plain  people.  No  esoteric  religion  has 
ever  been,  or  will  ever  be,  of  any  real  significance 
except  in  the  way  of  tyranny  or  oppression.  Cer- 
tainly the  gospel  could  never  remain  the  gospel 
if  it  once  became  the  exclusive  property  of  an 
aristocracy.  Just  as  certainly  is  it  true  that  the 
rank  and  file  of  men  are  testing  the  gospel  to-day 
on  the  basis  of  its  actual  efficiency  to  bring  the 
ideals  of  Jesus  into  social  life.  True,  many  church 
members  of  the  older  sort  fail  to  appreciate  this 
fact.  They  still  think  that  precision  in  doctrinal 
statement  is  the  vital  matter,  and  in  too  many  cases 
they  are  unwilling  to  take  as  the  sufficient  test  of 
loyalty  to  the  gospel  a  determination  to  produce 
among  individuals  and  in  society  the  quality  of  life 
of  Jesus.  They  want  a  confession  of  belief  about 
Jesus  as  well  as  a  life  full  of  confidence  in  Jesus. 
But  a  knowledge  of  the  situation  as  it  exists  outside 
of  the  existing  circles  of  ultra-ecclesiasticism  can 
lead  to  only  one  conclusion  ;  namely,  the  rank  and 
file  of  men  have  ceased  to  be  interested  in  the  ques- 
tions of  trinitarianism,  the  substitutionary  atone- 
ment, decrees,  foreordination,   or  even  the  infalli- 


258         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

bility  of  the  Scriptures.  Such  matters,  it  is  true, 
are  still  discussed  in  church  circles  and  theological 
seminaries,  and  by  some  clergymen,  but  the  flood 
of  interest  has  passed  these  questions  and  looks 
to  the  far  more  vital  issue  which,  without  the  plain 
man's  knowing  it,  is  that  raised  by  Nietzsche. 
The  maxims  of  our  social  life  in  so  far  as  they  are 
anything  more  than  the  luxury  of  idle  moments  are 
maxims  dealing  with  success.  The  ideal  man  of 
to-day  is  first  of  all  the  man  who  amasses  great 
power  by  amassing  great  wealth;  in  the  second 
place  he  is  the  man  who  amasses  power  in  politics ; 
in  the  third  place  he  is  the  man  who  amasses  honor 
in  some  profession  or  non-commercial  pursuit. 
Theoretically  the  champions  of  these  classes  of 
men  justify  their  ideals  in  terms  of  social  service. 
Practically  any  service  that  costs  much  bother  or 
sacrifice  is  relegated  to  those  who  are  leading,  so  to 
speak,  professional  vicarious  lives  supported  by  men 
who  are  pursuing  the  "will  to  power." 

It  must  be  admitted  that  our  social  order  as  it 
no  stands  is  not  conducive  to  checking  this  pur- 
suit of  success  as  the  final  good.  The  man  who 
deliberately  chooses  the  vicarious  life  will  find 
plenty  of  opportunities  to  emulate  the  martyrs  even 
though  he  may  not  have  the  distinction  of  being 


THE   TEST   OF    LIFE  259 

burned  alive.  The  gospel  is  submitting  to  the 
same  general  test  that  its  followers  endure.  If  it 
cannot  evoke  from  its  followers  the  cooperative 
impulse  which  Jesus  calls  love;  if  it  cannot  stimu- 
late men  to  choose  the  higher  sets  of  values  rather 
than  the  material;  in  a  word,  if  it  cannot  be  indi- 
vidually and  socially  redemptive,  it  will  fail  miser- 
ably. 

I  cannot  see  how  any  fair-minded  observer  of  the 
history  of  Western  civilization,  and  particularly  the 
student  of  democracy,  can  fail  to  see  that  in  a  broad 
way  the  gospel  is  constantly  and  successfully  pioneer- 
ing in  this  precise  direction.  We  are  always  in 
danger  of  judging  any  great  social  movement  by 
individuals  whom  we  happen  to  know.  In  this 
fashion  some  of  us  who  have  been  unfortunate 
enough  to  be  thrown  into  company  with  hypocriti- 
cal Christians  come  to  distrust  the  power  of  the 
gospel  in  our  present  social  order,  while  others  of 
us,  who  have  been  more  fortunate  in  our  com- 
panions, are  more  optimistic  in  our  hopes.  But 
experiences  of  either  sort  are,  after  all,  misleading 
when  treated  as  universal.  We  must  take  a  broad 
outlook.  The  questions  which  we  must  answer  are  : 
In  the  midst  of  this  struggle  for  success  do  we  find  a 
rising  sense  of  the  rights  of  the  less  favored?    Is 


260         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

our  interest  in  the  weaker  growing  more  brotherly 
or  are  we  more  tempted  to  treat  them  as  delin- 
quent or  defective  pawns  in  the  social  struggle? 
Is  the  general  tone  of  our  social  morality  rising  as 
regards  the  care  of  children,  the  treatment  of  women 
in  industry,  the  insistence  on  humanitarian  care 
for  employees  ?  Is  there  growing  up  a  larger  readi- 
ness to  consent  to  changes  in  some  of  the  structural 
relations  of  economic  life,  for  the  purpose  of  demo- 
cratizing privilege?  Such  questions  as  these  are 
not  to  be  answered  by  impressions  drawn  from 
this  or  that  man,  but  by  the  study  of  statistics,  of 
legislation,  of  commercial  ideals,  of  philanthropy,  of 
education.  And  such  a  study,  though  it  be  as  dis- 
criminating as  facts  demand,  will  show  that  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  gospel  in  terms  of 
ethical  life  are  increasingly  influential. 

It  is  no  valid  objection  to  such  a  hopeful  view  to 
say  that  all  this  is  in  the  region  of  ethics,  not  that  of 
religion.  If  the  gospel  is  to  be  condemned  for  its 
failure  in  these  fields,  it  certainly  is  only  fair  play 
to  credit  it  with  such  successes  as  it  has  there  achieved. 
And  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  ethics  of  the  gospel  is  its 
religion  coming  to  self-realization  in  social  relations. 
The  men  and  women  who  are  most  interested  in 
this  social  uplift  are  those  who  at  some  point  or 


THE   TEST   OF   LIFE  261 

Other  have  been  touched  by  the  dynamics  of  the 
gospel  itself.  They  may  be  far  apart  from  the 
churches,  but  the  churches  and  the  gospel  are  not 
identical.  More  than  that,  the  churches  them- 
selves are  growing  more  evangelical.  The  power  of 
the  vicarious  life  is  greater  to-day  than  ever  before. 
Jesus  may  be  less  thought  of  as  the  second  person 
of  the  Trinity  suffering  upon  the  cross  to  make 
feudal  satisfaction  to  a  feudal  God,  but  he  is  none 
the  less  increasingly  thought  of  as  the  "strong  son 
of  God,  immortal  love,"  who  took  upon  himself 
our  infirmities,  shared  the  bitterness  of  our  indus- 
trial order,  endured  the  buffetings  of  sinful  men, 
paid  love's  penalty  to  religious  bigotry,  and,  through 
the  faith  which  he  evokes,  draws  men  to  his  own 
ideal  of  vicarious  life  as  that  of  God  Himself. 

It  is  only  corroboration  of  this  view  when  we  see 
the  gospel  powerful  in  individual  lives.  What  tri- 
umphs it  has  won  over  debased  souls  !  Drunkards 
and  liars,  prostitutes  and  thieves,  yes,  even  hypo- 
critical sinners  of  so-called  respectable  classes,  who 
would  otherwise  be  found  among  the  miserable 
outcasts  denied  admission  to  the  New  Jerusalem, 
have  been  transformed  by  its  power  and  made 
fellow-heirs  with  the  saints  of  all  the  ages !  We 
sometimes    say    that    the    age    of   great    religious 


262         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN  MAN 

revivals  is  past,  but  the  facts  give  the  lie  to  the  as- 
sertion. The  past  few  years  have  seen  not  only 
innumerable  revivals  of  the  type  men  said  were  no 
longer  possible,  but  they  have  seen  also  an  ex- 
traordinary response  the  world  over  on  the  part  of 
individual  men  and  women  to  the  appeal  of  Jesus 
for  that  sort  of  life  which  he  himself  lived.  Evan- 
gelism itself  is  being  filled  with  the  social  spirit. 
If  we  admit,  as  I  believe  we  must,  that  as  yet  the 
life  of  Jesus  cannot  be  lived  in  our  social  order 
without  self-sacrifice,  we  must  also  admit  that 
the  socialization  of  the  gospel  is  proceeding,  and 
that  the  plain  man  finds  it  easier  to-day  to  embody 
the  principles  of  Jesus  than  he  did  ten  years  ago. 
This  I  admit  is  a  statement  that  must  bear  the 
test  of  facts.  I  make  it  not  hastily,  but  in  view  of 
what  seems  to  me  to  be  the  indubitable  evidence 
of  the  new  appropriation  of  the  gospel  by  the  men 
of  to-day.  Give  the  tendencies  everywhere  discover- 
able another  decade  of  development,  and  its  truth 
will  be  less  open  to  question. 

5.  There  is  also  the  rising  school  of  radicals  who 
believe  that  the  gospel's  ideals  were  not  intended 
for  the  historically  developing  social  order,  but 
were  intended  to  serve  ad  interim  during  the  bitter 
period  when  the  followers  of  Christ  awaited  his  re- 


THE    TEST   OF   LIFE  263 

turn  to  establish  his  new  kingdom.  Such  an  opin- 
ion is  based  upon  the  assumptions  that  the  catas- 
trophe which  was  to  inaugurate  the  kingdom  was 
an  essential  element  in  the  thought  of  Jesus  as  well 
as  of  his  disciples,  and  that  his  teachings  were  in- 
tended to  set  forth  the  way  in  which  the  expectant 
Christian  should  bear  the  buffetings  of  an  outra- 
geous age.  Any  attempt,  therefore,  to  develop  such 
ad  interim  ethics  into  a  permanent  ideal  is  judged 
possible  only  by  reading  back  into  the  New  Testa- 
ment conceptions  of  which  Jesus  and  his  apostles 
were  altogether  innocent. 

The  seriousness  of  such  a  position  as  this  is  ob- 
vious. If  Jesus  and  his  apostles  were  not  con- 
cerned with  fundamental  questions  of  humanity, 
but  only  with  a  modus  vivendi  pending  the  speedy 
coming  of  the  kingdom  from  heaven,  then  it  is 
impossible  to  see  how  their  words  can  be  of  any 
lasting  significance.  They  pass  from  the  company 
of  the  great  teachers  of  all  time  into  that  of  vision- 
aries whose  visions  were  false. 

Such  a  position  will  seem  to  the  average  man 
highly  improbable,  and  indeed  it  may  be  to  some 
extent  avoided  by  holding  that  the  fundamental 
thought  of  Jesus  as  to  the  fatherliness  of  God  still 
holds  good,  notwithstanding  his  specific  ideals  of 


264         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN  MAN 

society.  But  such  a  defense  is  as  questionable  as 
the  reduction  of  Jesus  to  an  ecstatic  enthusiast.  A 
Jesus  that  lacked  moral  uniqueness,  who  was  never 
raised  from  the  dead,  who  taught  only  ad  interim 
ethics  and  was  essentially  an  ecstatic,  is  not  likely 
to  be  of  vital  significance  to  the  modem  world,  even 
though  he  may  have  taught  the  fatherliness  of  God. 
Yet  the  position  has  none  the  less  sufficient  jus- 
tification to  deserve  attention.  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  the  belief  in  the  speedy  return  of  Jesus 
to  establish  his  kingdom  did  to  some  extent  affect 
the  social  teaching  of  Paul.  He  believed  that  the 
conditions  under  which  the  church  existed  were 
temporary.  He  did  not  consciously  plan  for  distant 
posterity  because  he  did  not  believe  there  was  to  be 
any  distant  posterity.  The  age  was  to  be  suddenly 
closed,  and  a  new  age  was  to  be  introduced.  Between 
the  two  there  was  no  genetic  relation  outside  the 
community  of  the  saved,  that  is,  the  church.  But, 
as  we  have  already  endeavored  to  show,  such  views 
in  the  case  of  Paul  are  practically  lacking  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus.  Such  traces  of  them  as  remain 
in  the  oldest  stratum  of  the  gospel  are  incidental, 
and  to  make  them  the  controlling  factors  from  which 
to  estimate  the  social  ideals  of  Jesus  is  utterly  to  dis- 
tort the  perspective  of  the  gospel.     The  same  is  in 


THE   TEST   OF    LIFE  265 

large  measure  true  of  Paul.  Ad  interim  ethics  is 
undoubtedly  present  in  the  apostle's  letters  to  the 
Corinthians;  but  it  is  not  the  gospel  and  he  never 
regarded  it  as  the  gospel.  It  was  simply  directions 
as  to  how  men  who  believed  in  the  gospel  should 
live.  The  expectation  of  the  speedy  coming  of  Christ 
was  to  be  disappointed,  at  least  in  any  such  sense  as 
would  satisfy  the  content  of  the  expectation ;  but  the 
new  life  of  the  spirit  which  was  induced  by  faith  in 
Jesus  as  Christ  was  not  subject  to  any  ad  interim 
regulations.     That  new  life  was  the  eternal  life. 

Any  fair  interpretation  of  the  gospel  must  not 
over-emphasize  the  prominence  of  the  catastrophic 
element  in  the  early  Christian  thought.  Sooner  or 
later,  as  the  novelty  of  the  catastrophic  idea  passes, 
we  shall  see  that  in  the  ideals  of  individual  and 
social  life  contained  in  the  gospel  we  have  what 
is  permanent.  Both  Paul  and  Jesus,  but  particularly 
the  latter,  looked  across  the  great  chasm  which  was 
to  separate  the  one  age  from  the  other  and  centered 
attention  upon  the  quality  of  life  which,  beginning 
in  the  present  age,  would  reach  fullest  element  in  the 
coming  age.  Such  ideals  may  be  criticised  as  too 
high  for  the  social  order  as  we  know  it,  but  they 
cannot  fairly  be  criticised  as  not  intended  for  the 
present  age.     The  gospel  was  for  real  men  and 


266    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

women  living  in  an  evil  age.  The  universal  feeling 
of  the  race  has  not  been  altogether  wrong  in  its 
perception  of  the  dominating  influence  of  Jesus. 
Two  millennia  of  experience  cannot  be  thrust 
aside  by  an  academic  overestimate  of  certain  ele- 
ments in  the  life  of  the  early  Christians. 

6.  Finally  there  is  the  fundamental  opposition 
of  the  non-religious  modem  man  to  the  spiritual 
order. 

We  have  in  our  discussion,  it  will  be  recalled, 
restricted  the  term  "modern  man"  to  those  who 
have  religious  interests,  and  with  whom  therefore 
the  gospel  has  common  ground.  But  such  a  clas- 
sification, while  justifiable,  needs  to  be  supplemented 
by  the  recognition  of  the  influence  of  modem  men 
of  a  different  type.  It  is  one  of  the  paradoxical  char- 
acteristics of  history  that  the  forces  of  illumination 
and  of  culture  often  depreciate  not  merely  Chris- 
tianity as  a  body  of  formulated  doctrines,  but  that 
fundamental  faith  in  the  supremacy  of  the  spirit 
which  Christianity  presupposes.  This  conflict  be- 
tween the  two  orders  of  life,  the  order  of  physical 
nature  and  the  order  of  the  spirit,  was  never  more 
sharply  waged  than  to-day. 

The  representatives  of  naturalism  fall  roughly 
into  two  classes:    those  who  are  dominated  by  a 


THE   TEST   OF   LIFE  267 

materialistic    interpretation    of    nature    and    those 
whose  devotion  to  ideaHstic  relations  is  aesthetic. 

If  a  plebiscite  of  men  of  science  were  undertaken, 
it  would  probably  show  a  majority  in  favor  of  non- 
mechanical  interpretation  of  the  universe.  Doubt- 
less this  majority  would  be  not  committed  to  evan- 
gelical Christianity  as  such,  although  on  this  point 
anything  like  trustworthy  statistics  are  unobtain- 
able. But  in  the  world  of  science  minorities  are 
often  a  potent  leaven,  and  their  influence  extends 
beyond  the  limits  of  statistics.  The  influence  of 
a  man  like  Haeckel  is  far  wider  than  among  the  men 
of  science  who  accept  his  findings,  for  it  has  extended 
out  into  the  great  public  and  is  exhibited  throughout 
the  world  in  the  establishment  of  clubs.  The 
members  of  these  clubs  believe  themselves  thor- 
oughly modem  and  among  them  are  many  who 
discount  all  religion,  and  Christianity  in  particular. 
Similar  is  the  case  of  many  men  who,  although  of 
no  particular  intellectual  attainment,  have  been 
caught  in  the  general  spirit  of  revolt  against  the 
past  and  pride  themselves  on  a  general  negative 
attitude  as  regarding  religion.  Men  and  women 
of  such  temper  who  have  also  become  Marxian 
socialists  are  very  apt  to  be  bitter  in  their  assaults 
upon  Christianity. 


265         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

Again,  there  is  the  other  class  of  modem  men 
whose  interest  is  particularly  in  the  more  aesthetic 
aspects  of  culture.  They  are,  of  course,  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  general  scientific  position,  but  they 
are  particularly  concerned  with  matters  of  litera- 
ture and  art.  To  a  considerable  degree  they  are  the 
modem  representatives  of  the  men  of  the  Illumina- 
tion and  the  Renaissance.  It  would  be  difficult  to 
discover  how  far  such  polite  interest  in  the  world  is 
atheistic,  but  so  far  as  it  is  expressed  in  poetry  and 
in  essays  it  certainly  could  not  be  characterized  as 
evangelical.  Generally  speaking,  it  is  indifferent 
rather  than  positive.  If  its  representatives  would 
so  far  yield  to  the  theological  pressure  as  to  become 
interested  in  the  formulation  and  justification  of 
religious  belief,  very  possibly  some  of  them  might 
be  brought  to  sympathy  with  Christianity.  Their 
influence,  however,  like  those  of  the  more  pro- 
nouncedly scientific  propagandists  of  non-religion, 
is  steadily  being  felt  and  is  certain  to  be  extended 
still  farther  unless  it  is  met  by  an  intellectually 
satisfactory  apologetic.  In  so  far  as  the  influence 
of  these  two  types  of  modern  men  is  unopposed  by 
an  evangelicalism  that  agrees  with  them  in  accept- 
ing the  findings  of  modem  science,  it  will  injuri- 
ously affect  the  modem  men  of  the  more  religious 


THE    TEST   OF    LIFE  269 

type;   for  it  represents  a  current  in  life  which  must 
be  opposed  if  it  is  not  to  be  supreme. 

The  things  which  are  not  seen,  humanity  believes, 
are  eternal,  but  they  need  constant  vindication. 
We  need  to  show  to  modern  men  of  this  anti-reli- 
gious type  that  the  Christian  thinker  does  not  hesitate 
to  accept  the  challenge  of  those  who  deny  the  vaHdity 
and  finality  of  the  spiritual  order.  For  it  is  this 
denial,  whether  positive  or  involved  in  religious  in- 
difference, that  threatens  our  modern  world.  The 
enormous  development  of  material  resources;  the 
mad  search  for  pleasure;  the  growing  and  in  some 
cases  intentional  paganism  of  a  society  that  once 
called  itself  Christian,  —  all  are  among  the  startling 
phenomena  of  our  day.  And  yet  idealism  has  not 
been  crushed  out.  Again  and  again  it  has  risen  from 
its  tomb  just  as  its  executors  were  celebrating  its 
death.  So  it  is  to-day.  The  very  pressure  of  the 
materialistic  forces  of  civilization  has  served  to 
bring  to  the  forefront  the  new  idealism.  And  this 
new  idealism  is  an  ally  of  the  gospel,  even  though  in 
many  cases  it  hesitates  to  affirm  some  of  the  elements, 
particularly  the  historical,  of  the  gospel  which  we 
have  formulated.  It  could  not  be  otherwise,  for  it 
is  steadily  developing  and  recognizing  that  attitude 
of  faith  which  the  gospel  presupposes.     In  the  case 


270         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN  MAN 

of  a  man  like  Eucken  this  alliance  is  explicit.  But 
whether  explicit  or  not  every  believer  in  evangelical- 
ism, as  contradistinguished  from  an  ecclesiastical 
orthodoxy,  should  welcome  its  assistance  and  be 
ready  to  show  that  what  it  sets  forth  in  terms  of  an 
interpretation  of  the  universe,  Christianity  also  ex- 
hibits in  the  specific  experiences  of  Jesus  and  the 
men  of  Christian  faith. 

These  various  forces  which  assault  the  reasonable- 
ness and  practicability  of  the  gospel  are,  unfortu- 
nately, too  of  ten  ignored  or  minimized  by  the  defenders 
of  evangelical  faith.  Such  a  procedure  is  greatly  to 
be  deplored.  Even  though  it  may  be  true  that  men 
are  seldom  argued  into  religion  they  are  certainly 
often  argued  out  of  it.  To  say  that  such  anti-reli- 
gious feeling  is  the  expression  of  moral  difficulties,  or, 
as  it  is  sometimes  put  by  earnest  religious  men,  that 
doubt  implies  sin,  is  to  deepen  the  chasm  between 
the  church  and  those  modern  men  who  are  already 
anti-religious,  and  to  make  more  difiicult  the  task  of 
the  religious  modern  man  who  wishes  to  maintain 
loyalty  both  to  the  modern  world  and  to  the  gospel. 
It  is  true  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  men  to  go  through 
the  agony  of  religious  doubt  in  order  to  come  into  the 
health  of  religious  faith,  but  to  assert  that  persons 
passing  through  the  process  of  theological  reconstruc- 


TEST    OF    LIFE  27 1 

tion  are  sinful  is  a  fatal  mistake.  A  rational  apolo- 
getic at  this  point  is  as  much  needed  to-day  as  it  was 
at  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  or  Paley.  The  fact  that 
the  battleground  and  weapons  have  changed  should 
not  lead  us  to  minimize  the  fact  that  the  battle  is  still 
on,  and  that  it  has  passed  from  the  outposts  to  the 
very  fortress  of  religion  itself.  As  to  the  final  out- 
come we  can  have  no  doubt,  but  it  is  the  part  of  wis- 
dom to  see  that  the  battle  is  not  prolonged  and  that 
the  forces  of  the  enemy  are  not  increased  by  the  defec- 
tion of  overdisciplined  or  wrongly  trained  defenders. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  NEW  LIFE  IN  CHRIST 

To  meet  objections  to  the  practicability  of  the  gos- 
pel is,  however,  to  leave  the  matter  only  negatively 
considered.  At  the  best  we  have  thus  showed  only 
that  in  the  past  it  has  proved  efficient.  The  real 
question  is  whether  it  contains  within  itself  an  au- 
thoritative appeal  which  can  so  transform  men  of 
to-day  as  to  do  for  them  what  it  did  for  their  less 
scientific  predecessors  who  lived  in  less  complicated 
social  conditions. 

But  the  word  authoritative  does  not  mean  exter- 
nal compulsion.  Our  discussion  thus  far  will  have 
been  utterly  misunderstood  if  the  impression  should 
have  been  made  that  the  gospel  is  of  the  nature  of 
dogma.  Jesus  does  not  need  any  vote  of  ecclesias- 
tical majorities  to  establish  his  truthfulness.  To 
attempt  to  apply  the  gospel  in  our  present  age  is 
not  simply  to  bring  over  from  the  past  that  which 
must  be  believed  under  penalty ;  it  is  rather  to  at- 
tempt to  give  control  to  the  impulses  of  the  spirit- 
ual life  by  the  use  of  facts  that  have  both  historical 

272 


THE   NEW   LIFE    IN   CHRIST  273 

and  religious  significance,  and  also  by  the  use  of 
principles  and  ideals  which  the  experience  of  the 
Christian  community  have  shown  to  be  reason- 
able and  morally  effective.  The  authority  of  the 
gospel  lies  not  in  the  presuppositions  with  which 
it  is  approached,  but  in  its  capacity  to  evoke  the 
response  of  the  spiritual  life.  It  has  the  energy 
of  the  ideal  and  not  the  command  of  the  decree. 


I.  What  is  that  salvation  which  the  gospel  of  the 
New  Testament  asserts  can  be  brought  to  individ- 
uals ?  We  have  defined  it  negatively  as  deliverance, 
in  New  Testament  terms,  from  Satan,  sin,  and  death, 
and  in  the  modem  equivalent  as  deliverance  from 
physical  necessity,  from  the  backward  pull  of  the 
vestiges  of  past  stages  of  development  surviving  in 
the  individual  and  society,  and  from  the  collapse  of 
the  process  of  physical  development  in  death.  But 
we  have  seen  also  that  the  gospel  promises  more  than 
mere  rescue.  Rescue  is  only  the  converse  of  that 
positive  deliverance  which  is  in  terms  of  transformed 
and  triumphant  personality,  raised  by  fellowship 
with  God  into  superiority  to  the  impersonal  world  of 
nature  and  the  less  personal  forces  that  lead  to  sin. 
How  distinct  this  is  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  must  be 


274         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

clear  to  every  one  who  attentively  studies  the  oldest 
strata  of  the  gospel  records.  The  later  editors  of 
these  strata  may  have  been  dominated  to  a  higher 
degree  than  Jesus  by  a  conception  of  a  catastrophic 
deliverance,  but  they  were  not  content  to  describe 
even  this  great  event  of  the  future  as  merely  a  rescue. 
Jesus  did  more  than  throw  out  a  life  line;  he  re- 
leases a  life  force  in  every  soul  that  trusts  him.  The 
teachings  of  Jesus  as  revealed  by  sympathetic  criti- 
cism are  fundamentally  in  terms  of  life.  There  is  not 
a  suggestion  of  self-repression  in  his  words.  His 
teaching  as  to  sacrifice  is  a  teaching  of  the  subordina- 
tion of  a  secondary,  impersonal,  to  a  primary,  personal 
good.  Physical  life  may  well  be  lost  to  gain  a 
spiritual  life  like  that  of  God. 

It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  point  out  that  this 
spiritual  life,  to  the  full  attainment  of  which  the  gospel 
points  the  way,  does  not  necessarily  involve  any  pecul- 
iar psychology,  such  as  sometimes  masks  itself  be- 
hind the  word  spirit.  Nor  is  it  an  abstraction  gained 
by  eliminating  concrete  qualities.  It  is  rather  a 
transformed  life  itself,  the  equivalent  in  our  modern 
thought  of  the  eternal  life  of  which  Jesus  so  frequently 
spoke.  For  eternal  life  with  Jesus  is  neither  a  new 
vital  quantum  nor  yet  a  mere  continuation  of  the 
life  one  lives  before  death.     The  history  of  the  term 


THE    NEW    LIFE    IN    CHRIST  275 

cannot  be  shaped  up  from  a  philological  analysis  of  a 
Greek  word.  It  is  one  of  the  aspects  of  a  socialized 
concept,  the  already  familiar  messianic  hope.  The 
gospel  presupposes  those  two  ages  which  formed  so 
essential  an  element  in  the  messianic  program ;  "  this 
age"  full  of  misery  and  oppression  of  the  righteous, 
and  "  the  Age  to  come"  when  the  kingdom  was  to  be 
established,  the  will  of  God  was  to  be  perfectly  done, 
and  joy  was  to  be  the  eternal  possession  of  the  Chris- 
tian. Everlastingness  is  involved  in  this  life  because 
the  Age  is  never  to  end,  but  it  is  only  one  of  its  ele- 
ments. When  Jesus  and  the  apostles  looked  forward 
to  the  Age-life  they  looked  forward  not  to  a  primitive 
conception  of  the  reSmergence  of  the  interests  of  the 
physical  life,  but,  as  we  can  now  see,  to  a  higher  type 
of  life,  in  which  there  was  to  be  not  only  a  continua- 
tion of  that  evolution  of  individuality  we  already  can 
trace,  but  a  blessed  improvement  upon  everything 
physical.  The  conflict  between  the  natural  and 
spiritual  orders  —  that  is  what  the  two  ages  of 
Christian  messianism  pictured  ;  the  joyous  triumph 
of  the  spiritual  life  in  the  spiritual  order  —  that  is 
the  blessedness  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

To  attain  to  this  spiritual  life  is  to  be  saved.  Its 
elements,  or  at  least  its  potencies,  are  already  resident 
in  the   human  personality,  but  need  toj  be  made 


276    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

supreme  in  self-realization  and  self-expression.  This 
can  be  possible  only  as  a  man  is  volitionally  at  one 
with  an  environing  God  from  whom  he  Ihas  been 
separated  by  sin.  Such  a  radical  change,  however, 
is  possible  only  as  one  chooses  to  make  paramount  the 
values  of  the  spiritual  life,  or,  as  Jesus  would  say, 
repents  and  seeks  the  eternal  life  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  The  full  establishment  in  one's  living  of  such 
a  perspective  of  values  in  itself  constitutes  salvation, 
for  it  is  to  have  one's  entire  personal  existence  con- 
trolled by  the  timeless  ideal  of  love  like  that  of  the 
eternal  God.  A  personality  controlled  by  the  im- 
pulses of  the  physical  Hfe,  by  devotion  to  things 
which  are  temporal,  like  property  or  the  physical  life 
itself,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case  is  not  saved.  It 
is  degenerating  and  reverting  to  impersonal  living. 
As  Jesus  himself  taught,  in  seeking  to  save  that 
which  is  temporal  and  physical  men  neglect  and  lose 
that  which  is  spiritual  and  eternal.  It  is  a  grievous 
mistake  which  some  of  our  moral  teachers  are  making 
when  they  push  the  enjoyment  of  eternal  life  over 
beyond  death.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  gospel 
*  man  will  never  be  more  immortal  than  he  is  now. 
He  is  already  either  living  the  life  of  the  flesh  or  the 
life  of  the  spirit.  He  is  already  ''dead"  or  "risen." 
That  is  the  very  keynote  of   the  teaching  of  Jesus. 


THE   NEW   LIFE    IN   CHRIST  277 

In  his  devotion  to  those  timeless  values  he  sacrificed 
everything  that  was  temporary  —  family,  occupation, 
comfort,  life  itself.  In  him  and  in  his  followers  the 
eternally  personal  elements  triumphed  even  in  a 
world  of  time  over  impersonal  and  sinful  forces. 

InexpHcable  as  some  of  the  elements  of  this  salva- 
tion through  the  victory  of  the  timeless  spiritual  Hfe 
are,  we  still  can  see  that  it  is  true  to  the  fundamental 
principle  of  life  itself.  For  it -demands  not  only  ex- 
ternal conduct,  but  an  actual  adjustment  of  one's 
personality  to  the  spiritual  world  of  God.  Regenera- 
tion is  no  mere  technical  term.  Morality  is  sancti- 
fied into  blessedness  by  the  more  complete  personaH- 
zation  of  the  man  who  chooses  to  trust  and  rely 
upon  God,  the  Absolute  Reason,  who  is  also  Love. 

We  have  not  sufficiently  recognized  the  supreme 
place  of  this  completer  personalization  of  humanity 
in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  for  we  do  not  really  under- 
stand his  message  until  we  see  that  the  deliverance 
which  he  promises  is  accomplished  by  such  a  trans- 
formation of  life  from  the  tyranny  of  change  to  the 
freedom  of  eternal  values.  The  tyranny  of  natural 
forces,  it  is  true,  can  still  be  exerted  over  the  imper- 
sonal elements  in  our  being.  God  can  crush  us  in 
earthquakes  and  avalanches,  but  in  so  doing  he  is 
not  working  within  the  sphere  of  spirit.    He  treats 


278         THE    GOSPEL    AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

US  personally  only  as  He  loves  and  saves  us.  The 
eternal  life  which  Jesus  would  have  men  attain  is 
that  which  Plato  dimly  pictured  in  his  Ideas,  and 
poets  have  sung  in  their  noblest  visions  of  the  true 
worth  of  the  human  spirit.  Mankind  is  saved  from 
natural  forces  both  without  and  within  itself  by  a 
divine  fellowship  that  raises  the  human  soul  above 
them  and  accustoms  its  activities  to  the  primacy  of 
such  immaterial  eternal  goods  as  faith  and  justice 
and  love. 

2.  The  teaching  of  Paul  is  the  same.  Our  theol- 
ogies have  preferred  to  shape  themselves  along  the 
interpretative,  forensic  thought  of  the  apostle,  but 
in  the  light  of  the  historical  approach  to  his  gospel 
we  are  coming  to  see  that  what  Paul  was  most  inter- 
ested in  was  personality  that  had  reached  self-expres- 
sion in  the  new  spiritual  order  revealed  in  Jesus. 
Alongside  of  his  striking  exposition  of  the  messianic 
future  in  which  the  believer  was  to  share,  is  his  less 
rigorous,  less  systematic,  but  profoundly  more  domi- 
nating conception  of  the  life  in  Christ.  Even  if  it 
is  not  possible  to  reduce  many  of  these  personal  con- 
ceptions of  Paul  to  exact  definitions,  with  him  as 
with  Jesus  they  are  finalities  of  experience.  The  re- 
newed impulses  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the  new  loyalty 
evoked  by  the  Christ ;  the  enthusiasm  bom  of  a  great 


THE    ISHEW   LIFE    IN   CHRIST  279 

hope;  the  sublime  indifference  to  creature  comforts 
wherever  they  were  in  contrast  with  the  goods  of  the 
spiritual  personality,  —  all  these  are  the  very  heart 
of  Paulinism.  The  centering  of  thought  upon  formal 
Paulinism  has  given  us  traditional  orthodoxy  and  a 
misinterpretation  of  the  cry  of  "Back  to  Christ." 
The  centering  of  thought  on  these  personal,  vital 
elements  of  the  apostle's  teaching  will  give  us  that 
dynamic  religion  of  the  spirit  which  is  the  real  con- 
tribution of  Jesus  to  human  history.  Even  a  super- 
ficial knowledge  of  the  history  of  doctrine  corrobo- 
rates such  a  statement.  A  Christianity  without  con- 
viction is  powerless,  but  a  Christianity  that  has  shifted 
the  center  of  interest  from  supreme  personal  values 
to  ecclesiastical  conformity;  that  prefers  plans  of 
salvation  to  salvation  itself;  that  raises  definitions 
of  the  "natures"  of  Jesus  above  moral  surrender 
to  the  joy-giving  Saviour ;  has  always  bred  the  spirit 
of  persecution.  How  pathetic  is  the  history  of  the 
church  in  those  moments  when,  refusing  to  see  that 
the  only  thing  which  Jesus  and  Paul  really  demanded 
is  spiritual  likeness  with  God  as  exhibited  in  Jesus, 
it  has  attempted  to  find  its  ultimate  goods  in  enforced 
conformity  to  some  philosophy  masquerading  as  a 
gospel. 

We  need  to  distinguish  frankly  between  evangeli- 


28o         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

calism  in  the  true  sense  and  orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy 
is  an  authoritative  formulation  of  what  certain  ages 
and  men  believed  was  the  content  of  evangelicalism. 
It  is  an  evidence  of  the  existence  of  convictions,  but 
not  necessarily  the  existence  of  convictions  as  to  the 
supremacy  of  the  gospel  itself.  We  need  to  replace 
the  orthodoxy  which  Protestantism  inherited  from 
Rome  with  the  evangelicalism  of  Jesus  and  Paul. 
The  modern  man  sees  this  far  more  plainly  than 
those  men  who  prefer  the  authority  of  councils  and 
Popes  and  tradition,  no  matter  by  what  name  they 
may  be  called,  to  the  authority  of  the  Jesus  who 
evoked  faith  in  himself  as  God.  And  in  thus  rec- 
ognizing the  "power  of  eternal  life"  he  is  more  at 
one  with  the  gospel  than  perhaps  he  thinks. 

II 

I.  From  the  point  of  view  of  psychology  this  power 
of  the  gospel  to  bring  spiritual  forces  into  human 
experience  is  due  in  part  to  its  ability  to  arouse  faith 
in  the  God  of  Jesus.  But  faith,  as  every  Christian 
knows,  is  something  more  than  mere  assent  to  creeds 
or  anti-creeds.  It  is  the  making  of  conviction  the 
basis  of  conduct.  In  the  very  nature  of  the  case  such 
response  of  the  soul  to  what  it  holds  to  be  truth  is 
a  released  impulse.     The  worth  of  its  outcome  will 


THE   NEW   LIFE    IN   CHRIST  28 1 

depend  upon  how  far  the  ideal  by  which  the  impulse 
is  directed  and  given  content  is  in  accord  with  reality. 
Superstition  is  the  bastard  brother  of  faith.  For 
that  reason  if  for  no  other  it  is  the  duty  of  Christians 
to  be  able  to  give  a  reason  for  the  hope  that  is  within 
them.  The  gospel  when  once  accepted  becomes  a 
constant  source  of  suggestion  tending  to  rule  the  per- 
sonality in  its  self-expression.  In  the  same  propor- 
tion as  we  consistently  embody  the  impulse  born  of 
the  evangelistic  suggestions  that  God  is  love,  that 
men  may  be  saved  by  loyalty  to  Jesus,  that  life  is 
more  than  living,  and  that  goodness,  service,  and  im- 
mortal worth  are  within  the  grasp  of  each  of  us,  do 
we  live  the  true  spiritual  life  of  faith.  Our 
entire  discussion  has  failed  if  it  has  not  appeared 
that  such  an  act  of  faith,  born  of  the  acceptance  of  the 
gospel  as  reasonable  and  of  Jesus  as  something  more 
than  a  picture,  is  rational. 

At  this  point,  in  terms  of  mere  psychology,  Chris- 
tianity is  at  one  with  every  great  religion.  Each  has 
its  elemental  proposition  which  become  the  sources 
of  impulse.  The  difference  between  religions  lies 
in  the  content  of  the  germinal  teaching.  The  gospel 
and  the  message  of  Mahomet,  for  instance,  both  in- 
spire their  followers  with  enthusiasm.  The  chief 
difference  between  them  at  this  point  lies  in  the 


282    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

quality  of  life  which  the  enthusiasm  of  Christians 
and  Mohammedans  engenders.  The  Koran  nerves 
men  to  absolute  self-repressing  devotion  on  the  battle- 
field when  Allah's  will  is  only  to  be  accepted.  The 
gospel  has  stirred  innumerable  men  to  service  to 
their  kind  as  missionaries  and  social  workers,  under 
the  enlightened  impulse  toward  spiritual  freedom. 
However  much  the  modern  man  may  doubt  the 
power  of  the  gospel  to  affect  his  own  life  he  cannot 
fail  to  see  that  it  has  modified  the  lives  of  others. 
And  the  marvelous  thing  is  that  it  has  been  able  to 
survive  the  various  theories  and  practices,  the  theol- 
ogies and  philosophies  with  which  it  has  been  medi- 
ated to  men.  Indeed,  one  might  almost  say  that  the 
greatest  evidence  that  divine  power  is  resident  in  the 
gospel  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  vagaries  of  its  devotees 
have  not  neutralized  its  influence. 

2.  It  is  self-evident  that  the  saved  life  as  presented 
in  this  gospel  is  moral,  but  it  is  not  moral  in  the  sense 
that  it  is  under  compulsion  from  without.  The 
gospel  is  not  a  new  law;  it  is  a  new  power  which 
enables  the  human  soul  to  adjust  itself  into  harmony 
with  God  and  man.  That  is  the  central  thought  of 
Jesus  and  Paul.  The  commandment  had  been  super- 
seded ;  law  had  been  supplanted  by  spiritual  impera- 
tives as  the  slave  that  led  the  child  to  school  was 


THE   NEW   LIFE   IN   CHRIST  283 

supplanted  by  the  self-direction  of  the  mature  man. 
However  much  a  man  needs  that  moral  discontent 
born  of  a  knowledge  of  sin,  his  spiritual  life  is  not 
brought  into  self-expression  by  fear.  It  is  evoked 
by  Jesus.  Released  as  far  as  human  will  can  release 
from  subjection  to  sin,  it  is  raised  into  newness  of  life 
by  a  surrender  to  Jesus.  That  is  the  attraction  of  the 
cross  to  those  whose  eyes  are  not  closed  that  they 
may  not  see.  We  love  him  because  he  first  loved 
us.     And  to  love  him  is  to  try  to  be  like  him. 

In  the  very  nature  of  the  case  no  other  motive  is 
so  powerful  because  none  is  so  normal.  Love,  not 
fear,  awakens  love  and  casts  out  fear.  The  spiritual 
life  cannot  be  terrorized.  It  is  free.  And  this  free- 
dom of  the  sons  of  God  is  never  violated  by  Jesus 
or  the  Spirit.  The  life  that  embodies  that  fruit  of 
the  spirit  embodied  in  Jesus  and  evoked  by  a  knowl- 
edge of  him,  has  passed  into  a  region  of  free  per- 
sonal self-expression  above  statutes.  Here  is  the 
conception  of  the  real  superman  of  which  the 
Nietzschean  is  a  distortion.  The  free  spirit  is  he 
whose  impulses  are  controlled  and  directed  by  an 
ideal  that  is  the  anticipation  in  history  of  humanity's 
goal.  And  that  is  the  very  paraphrase  of  Chris- 
tian faith.     For  that  ideal  is  Christ. 

3.   Spiritual  liberty,  however,  is  not  without  its 


284    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

laws.  But  they  are  those  of  personal  relations. 
That  makes  the  difference  between  liberty  and  license 
on  the  one  hand  and  liberty  and  compulsion  on  the 
other.  In  its  self-expression  the  spiritual  life,  as 
the  gospel  always  insists,  is  conditioned  by  relation- 
ship with  other  spiritual  persons,  and  above  all  with 
God.  God  is  the  final  authority  because  He  is  the 
final  reality.  For  our  spiritual  health  demands  that 
we  conform  and  submit  to  His  Will  however  it  may 
be  discovered. 

The  gospel  does  not  insist  on  merely  subjective 
judgments  of  values.  They  might  lead  to  anarchic 
confusion.  Its  fundamental  thought  is  that  the  man 
who  undertakes  to  make  its  message  regnant  in  his 
life  by  his  response  to  Jesus  develops  such  an  attitude 
of  reconciliation  with  God  that  through  it  he  finds 
moral  direction.  It  leads  men  to  the  Light  and  the 
Light  becomes  the  minister  of  life.  Therein  lies  the 
possibility  of  a  community  of  the  Spirit,  the  true 
Democracy  of  which  men  dream,  in  which  men  are 
brothers  rather  than  subjects.  Therein  lies  also 
spiritual,  not  outer  authority.  As  brotherhood  is  the 
outcome  of  sonship,  spiritual  living  is  to  be  controlled 
in  its  self-expression  by  loyalty  to  the  new  life  itself 
as  determined  by  its  environment  of  God.  As  a  man 
grows  artistic  in  company  with  artists  does  he  grow 


THE    NEW    LIFE    IN   CHRIST  285 

spiritual  in  company  with  God.  ''  His  seed  is  in  him 
and  he  cannot  sin ;  "  that  is  the  simple  psychology  of 
the  Spirit.  "As  many  as  live  by  the  Spirit,  by  the 
Spirit  also  walk;"  that  is  its  all-embracing  impera- 
tive. The  spiritual  life  does  not  originate  such  an 
imperative;  it  comes  from  a  personal  situation 
wherein  is  God  willing  to  do  His  own  good  pleasure. 
In  its  interpenetration  with  the  Absolute  Person  the 
human  spirit  reaches  freedom  in  obedience.  It 
reaches  freedom  because  its  self-expression  is  deter- 
mined by  perfectly  personal  relations  and  therein  is 
the  only  freedom  it  should  ever  want  or  ever  can 
have.  It  reaches  obedience  because  if  there  be  a 
God  in  the  universe  and  if  we  undertake  to  put  our- 
selves in  a  personal  relationship  with  Him  He  must 
be  supreme  or  He  is  less  than  we.  Truth  does  not 
save ;  God  saves  men  who  —  sometimes  unexpect- 
edly —  in  the  search  for  truth  and  in  the  honest 
attempt  to  embody  truth,  find  Him  and  yield  to  Him 
as  a  God.  A  religion  with  simply  a  god-idea  is  a 
religion  fit  only  for  a  solipsistic  world  —  whatever 
that  might  be. 

In  this  recognition  of  the  authority  and  the  moral 
liberty  that  alike  come  from  loving  personal  relations 
with  God,  the  gospel  is  true  to  what  we  know  of  re- 
ligion itself.     For  if  one  were  to  analyze  religion  to 


286         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

its  very  elements  it  would  appear  that  its  germ,  so 
to  speak,  is  in  the  elemental  impulse  of  life  to  pro- 
tect itself.  Only  in  religion  this  protection  is  sought 
by  getting  help  from  environment,  or  some  one  of  its 
elements  conceived  of  personally.  Man  finds  himself 
at  the  mercy  of  the  world  in  the  midst  of  which  he 
lives.  He  extends  over  to  it  his  highest  ideals  born 
of  his  experience  of  persons,  then  seeks  to  make  the 
environment  thus  conceived  helpful.  He  seeks  to 
make  it  friendly  by  being  friendly  with  it.  In  fact, 
with  a  little  modification  of  Schleiermacher's  words 
religion  might  be  defined  as  an  attempt  to  reconcile 
and  so  make  helpful  the  superhuman  personal  envi- 
ronment upon  which  mankind  feels  itself  dependent. 
Prayer  is  to  religion  what  experiment  is  to  science. 

Such  a  definition,  it  is  true,  may  appear  formal 
and  abstract,  but  the  study  of  religions  will  readily 
give  it  content.  The  impulse  to  gain  help  from  a 
personal  God  upon  whom  men  find  themselves  de- 
pendent is  always  operative.  There  is,  it  is  true,  a 
tendency  in  some  quarters  to  substitute  social  ethics 
for  religion  and  to  make  the  performance  of  duty 
an  equivalent  for  prayer.  But  such  transformation 
is  really  contrary  to  the  elemental  and  determinative 
characteristics  of  human  nature.  The  gospel  is 
fundamentally  in  accord  with  life  itself  when  it  re- 


THE    NEW    LIFE    IN   CHRIST  287 

fuses  to  eliminate  the  reconciling  process.  It  makes 
the  relationship  of  reconciliation  the  very  center  of 
its  message,  the  Cross  the  symbol  of  its  triumph. 
More  than  this,  knowing  Jesus  it  knows  that  God 
is  ever  ready  to  help,  and  has  shown  how  He  can  help 
and  would  incite  men  to  seek  His  help.  It  clears 
away  all  the  misinterpretations  which  less  ethical 
religions  have  attached  to  the  process  of  reconciliation 
by  presenting  Jesus,  the  very  embodiment  of  the 
divine  life,  functioning  as  Saviour.  It  maintains  that 
God,  so  far  from  needing  to  be  appeased,  is  reconcil- 
ing the  world  to  Himself  through  Jesus.  It  denies 
that  there  is  need  of  ritual  sacrifice  and  finds  salva- 
tion in  a  free  personal  relationship  with  God  with 
which  all  forms  of  asceticism  are  grotesquely  incon- 
sistent. It  finds  its  moral  imperative  not  in  the  fear 
of  punishment  but  in  full  realization  of  the  Spirit 
by  whom  the  spiritual  life  is  evoked,  strengthened, 

and  directed. 

Ill 

A  man  is  not  saved  —  and  in  the  light  of  our 
modem  knowledge  of  human  nature  how  true  is 
the  word  —  until  he  is  at  one  with  God.  He  may 
indeed  be  living  a  conventionally  good  life;  he  may 
be  performing  acts  which,  thanks  to  the  imitative 
habit  of  mankind,  are  to  all  appearances  like  those 


288         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN  MAN 

that  are  the  outcome  of  a  genuinely  regenerate  life; 
yet  at  the  same  time  at  the  center  of  his  being  he 
may  be  bad. 

There  are  in  nature  many  analogies  to  this  fact 
of  religious  imitation.  Insects  resemble  flowers 
without  possessing  the  life  of  flowers;  animals  act 
like  human  beings  without  being  human;  flower- 
less  plants  so  shape  themselves  as  to  resemble  true 
flowers,  without  possessing  the  ability  of  real  flowers 
to  ripen  into  fruit  that  shall  in  turn  spring  into  new 
life.  And  in  all  these  cases  the  essential  difference 
is  the  same:  between  the  two  similar  objects  there  is 
no  identity  in  life. 

There  is,  of  course,  another  side  to  the  matter. 
Really  good  deeds  imply  a  good  life  behind  them. 
Regeneration  is  sometimes  so  subtle  a  process  as  to 
elude  consciousness  and  to  be  known  only  by  in- 
ference. But  the  principle  holds  true:  the  life  that 
is  at  one  with  God,  that  has  been  transformed  by 
His  Spirit  into  love  that  is  likeness  with  God  —  that 
life  only  is  the  right  life,  the  only  basis  of  genuine 
morality. 

It  is  the  old  issue  again  which  Jesus  raised. 
Measured  by  superficial  standards,  the  legalism  of 
an  arrogant  Pharisee  like  him  who  once  went  up  to 
the  temple  to  pray,  was  not  unlike  the  joyous  activity 


THE   NEW   LIFE   IN   CHRIST  289 

of  Peter  and  John,  who  also  went  up  to  the  temple 
at  the  hour  of  prayer.  But  at  the  heart  of  things 
there  was,  and  is,  a  profound  difference.  The 
legalist  makes  acts  the  end  of  life ;  the  gospel  makes 
acts  the  expression  of  personality.  The  one  looks 
to  separate  deeds  that  men  have  agreed  to  call 
good;  the  other  looks  to  a  life  which  must  express 
itself  in  deeds  that  are  good  because  they  spring 
from  a  life  that  is  like  God's,  because  it  comes  from 
God.  In  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  the  Christian 
must  champion  the  new  life  that  blossoms  out  in 
impulse  and  finds  fruitage  in  good  deeds.  We  are 
not  saved  because  we  are  good.  We  are  good 
because  we  are  saved.  Good  deeds  are  the  result 
of  our  new  life.  The  good  tree  must  bring  forth 
good  fruit. 

There  is  abundant  need  that  our  preachers,  waiv- 
ing all  right  to  pass  final  judgment  on  men,  should 
insist  on  this  primary  fact  in  religion.  To  neglect 
it,  in  the  interest  of  an  enthusiastic  championship  of 
a  more  superficial  morality,  is  to  be  untrue  to  the 
essence  of  Christianity  itself.  We  must  help  make 
the  very  center  of  man's  being  Godlike.  We  are 
not  to  insist  that  men  should  merely  copy  the  deeds 
of  Christ;  we  are  to  insist  that  they  shall  have  the 
mind,  the  spirit,  the  life  of  Christ.  A  man  is  not  a 
u 


290         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

Christian  because,  like  Jesus,  he  is  a  carpenter. 
Honorable  as  is  the  calling  of  honest  industry,  the 
sign  by  which  the  spiritual  life  is  to  conquer  is  not 
a  wood  saw.  No  more  is  a  man  religious  because 
he  is  an  investigator  of  religion.  The  anchor  that 
is  within  the  veil  is  not  in  the  shape  of  an  interroga- 
tion mark,  but  of  a  cross.  And  the  life  that  would 
be  genuinely  good  must  be  Christlike  in  its  de- 
pendance  upon  union  with  God.  Just  as  a  living 
organism  in  the  physical  world  can  bear  its  fruit 
only  as  it  is  in  normal  relation  with  its  true  environ- 
ment, can  the  human  soul  bear  fruit  of  real  good- 
ness only  in  personal  dependence  upon  God.  Is 
not  that  but  another  way  of  saying  what  Jesus 
said  so  beautifully  when  he  declared  that  he  was  the 
vine  and  that  his  disciples  were  the  fruitful  branches  ? 

For  the  regeneration  of  a  sinful  soul,  however 
little  or  much  its  process  may  be  clear  in  conscious- 
ness, however  distinct  or  indistinct  may  be  our 
understanding  of  the  gracious  influences  of  the 
Spirit  that  cause  it,  is  a  fact.  Some  day  our  psy- 
chologists will  devote  more  attention  to  it.  But  even 
when  it  forms  chapters  in  our  text-books,  it  will  be 
no  more  real  than  it  is  to-day  or  was  in  olden  times. 

Paul  was  no  mean  psychologist  himself.  True, 
he  did  not  have  all  the  appliances  of  the  modem 


THE   NEW   LIFE   IN    CHRIST  29I 

laboratory  with  which  to  test  reactions  of  nerves. 
But  for  moral  purposes  he  had  something  far 
better.  He  had  "the  mind  of  Christ."  He  saw 
that  the  new  life  that  comes  to  the  believer  in  Jesus 
Christ  was  something  more  than  a  mere  unfolding 
of  latent  tendencies  derived  from  one's  ancestors. 
He  saw  that  faith  in  Jesus  brought  men  into  vital- 
izing, transforming  relations  with  God  as  truly  as 
belief  in  a  radiator  as  a  means  of  heating  one's  cold 
hands  brings  the  warmth  of  some  great  central  fire 
to  the  one  who  transforms  that  belief  into  faith  and 
goes  to  the  radiator  for  its  help. 

And  he  saw  something  quite  as  important:  that 
the  new  life  that  comes  from  the  presence  of  God 
expresses  itself  in  moral  impulses  that  —  let  us  say 
it  with  all  reverence  — ■  are  like  the  moral  impulses 
of  God.  The  fruit  of  the  Spirit  was  love,  joy, 
peace,  kindness,  goodness.  If  a  man  puts  such 
impulses  into  action,  he  is  moral.  For  what  else  is 
morality  than  to  live  out  the  new  life  —  the  divine 
life  which  is  really  ours  because  God  is  working 
with  us?  In  comparison  with  such  gracious  spon- 
taneous morality  as  this,  what  can  the  legalist  offer? 
What,  indeed,  but  the  very  sort  of  life  against 
which  Paul  warned  the  Galatians ! 

We  are  always  in  danger  of  judging  character  by 


292    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

counting  up  and  comparing  the  sums  of  so-called 
good  and  evil  deeds.  We  are  always  tempted  to 
urge  men  to  do  things  rather  than  to  gain  this  up- 
springing  impulse  that  comes  from  the  life  with 
God.  But  when  we  look  to  this  easier  and  often 
more  popular  morality  we  are  mistaking  the  very 
laws  of  the  universe  in  which  we  live.  We  may 
tie  grapes  to  thorns  and  delude  ourselves  into  a 
genial  optimism  that  we  have  wrought  a  miracle. 
But  as  long  as  nature  is  nature,  to  raise  grapes  we 
must  plant  grapevines. 

The  chief  business  of  the  preacher  of  the  gospel 
is  not  to  urge  men  to  be  good,  but  to  show  them 
how  by  coming  to  and  living  with  God  they  may 
become  good.  Reform  springs  from  regeneration. 
It  can  never  replace  it.  The  moment  our  churches 
confuse  the  two  they  are  in  danger  of  losing  their 
birthright.  We  must  needs  preach  ethics,  both  of 
the  individual  and  of  society;  but  ethics,  like  legal- 
ism, is  not  the  gospel.  The  chiefest  blessing  of  the 
Christian  is  not  the  call  to  do  things  for  God,  but 
the  gracious  promise  that  God  will  do  things  for 

and  in  him. 

IV 

It  is  plain  therefore  that  there  is  nothing  magical 
in  the  gospel.     No  man  can  be  saved  a  bad  man. 


THE   NEW   LIFE   IN   CHRIST  293 

No  man  can  be  saved  an  unforgiving  man.  No 
man  can  be  saved  except  as  a  spiritual  person.  To 
be  saved  is  to  be  saved  not  for  something  future 
but  to  membership  in  a  world  which  is  even  now 
in  process  toward  spiritual  ends.  The  newness  of 
life  in  Christ  is  a  moral  newness  which  expresses 
itself  primarily  in  faith  energized  by  love.  A  man 
is  unchristian  in  the  same  proportion  that  he  is 
selfish.  The  spiritual  man  is  instinctively  social. 
He  wants  not  the  separate  star  of  Kipling,  but  the 
Holy  City  of  John.  The  working  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  always  altruistic.  A  life  in  Christ  is  a  life 
like  Christ's.  The  spiritual  life  that  seeks  simply 
to  save  itself  for  the  enjoyment  of  heaven  is  un- 
spiritual.  To  cling  to  the  cross  may  be  refined 
selfishness,  but  to  bear  the  cross  is  to  let  the  spiritual 
life  express  its  true  social  character  in  service  to 
others  and,  what  is  sometimes  vastly  more  trying, 
in  service  with  others. 

If  it  were  for  no  other  reason  than  the  cost  of 
a  life  like  Christ's,  we  should  be  impressed  by  its 
seriousness.  We  are  dealing  here  with  the  very 
elementals  of  personality.  Sacraments,  theologies, 
organizations,  —  all  are  secondary  and  functional. 
The  church  must  be  done  with  magnifying  the 
perimeter  of  the  spiritual  life. 


294         'J^HE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

Men  of  all  sorts,  but  particularly  modem  men, 
are  restless  until  this  elemental  life  finds  its  proper 
environment  of  truth  and  God.  That  is  no  slight 
demand,  nor  one  to  be  ignored  in  the  interests  of 
popularity  and  statistics.  You  cannot  entertain 
men  into  self-denial.  Religion  cannot  be  surrepti- 
tiously introduced  between  stereopticon  slides.  If 
this  life  in  Christ  is  mere  form,  men  want  to  know 
it.  If,  as  the  gospel  asserts,  it  is^the  only  true  life, 
they  want  it  made  paramount. 

V 

It  is  always  difficult  to  convince  the  man  who 
has  starved  his  impulse  to  get  help  through  per- 
sonal relationship  with  the  God  of  help,  that  any- 
thing real  comes  from  such  a  personal  relationship 
as  the  gospel  insists  is  established  by  making  Jesus 
supreme  in  one's  life;  yet  such  a  person  has  only 
to  look  about  him  to  see  how  influential  such  a  con- 
ception of  life  is. 

The  language  of  experience  when  once  it  is 
loosed  from  the  bonds  of  conventional  phraseology 
is  a  language  that  needs  no  lexicon.  Priam  beg- 
ging the  body  of  Hector,  Achilles  the  wrathful, 
Ulysses  the  much  enduring,  are  no  strangers  to  us. 
We   meet   them   on   our   streets.     The   grief   that 


THE    NEW    LIFE    IN   CHRIST  295 

killed  Eli  kills  men  to-day.  David's  agony  of 
love  and  remorse  leaps  still  from  the  lips  of  fathers. 
Three  thousand  years  and  more  have  passed  since 
a  slave  mother  would  not  let  her  little  boy  be  killed ; 
near  four  thousand  since  Jacob  toiled  seven  years 
twice  over  for  the  love  he  bore  his  Rachel;  but 
mother  love  and  romance  have  not  yet  perished 
from  the  earth. 

That  Christian  experience  in  which  men  surren- 
der to  the  Spirit  is  as  much  a  unit.  Men  tell  their 
stories  in  different  words,  but  they  mean  the  same 
thing.  They  set  forth  "plans  of  salvation"  satis- 
factory enough  to  themselves  but  unintelligible  to 
others.  They  label  each  other  by  their  differences 
and  forget  that  God  has  made  all  His  true  children 
of  the  same  spiritual  stock.  Yet  when  they  speak  in 
terms  of  experience  they  see  eye  to  eye.  They  realize 
that  their  words  are  of  necessity  the  mirrors  of  their 
time,  what  their  teachers  have  taught  them.  Strip 
off  this  husk  and  they  will  find  within  the  whole 
family  of  God  something  common  to  the  Christian 
centuries  —  tlie  salvation  of  a  soul  as  it  turns  to 
God  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ. 

A  wayward  genius  in  the  agony  of  remorse  opens 
the  Bible  for  a  message.  The  first  verse  upon 
which  his  eye  falls  is  to  him  the  word  of  God.     His 


296         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

life  is  changed  and  out  from  the  heart  of  his  pas- 
sionate metaphysics  Augustine  cries:  ''Lord,  Thou 
hast  made  us  for  Thyself,  and  our  heart  is  restless 
until  it  repose  in  Thee."  A  brilliant  young  man  of 
twenty-one  is  riding  through  the  forest  of  France 
to  join  in  one  of  the  castle  stormings  of  the  Middle 
Ages.  He  knows  that  his  work  lies  elsewhere  than 
among  wild  adventures,  but  he  persists  in  his  re- 
bellious mood.  In  the  midst  of  the  forest  he  comes 
suddenly  upon  a  church,  God's  voice  in  stone. 
And  Bernard  the  adventurer,  the  future  Bernard 
of  Clairvaux  the  Saint,  like  Saul  of  old,  falls  from 
his  horse  and  there  on  his  knees  in  the  wayside 
chapel  "he  lifts  up  his  hands  to  heaven  and  pours 
forth  his  heart  like  water  in  the  presence  of  the 
Lord."  A  gay  man  of  thirty  lies  on  his  couch 
composing  a  love  sonnet.  A  vision  of  the  Holy 
Virgin  stops  his  pen.  He  tries  again.  Again  the 
Virgin.  He  yields  to  the  vision,  and  Raymond 
Lull  the  man  of  the  world  becomes  Raymond  Lull 
the  martyr  to  trinitarianism  among  the  Moslems. 
A  German  student  is  overtaken  in  a  thunder  shower; 
the  lightning  strikes  at  his  feet.  "Help!  Anna, 
blessed  Saint!  I  will  be  a  monk,"  he  prays.  It  is 
the  beginning  of  the  deeper  religious  life  of  Martin 
Luther. 


THE   NEW   LIFE   IN   CHRIST  297 

And  so  again  and  again  it  happens.  Every  man, 
be  he  great  or  commonplace,  meets  the  saving 
God  in  a  different  way.  Christians  tell  their 
stories  in  different  words,  but  their  experience  is 
at  bottom  the  same.  These  men  could  never  have 
agreed  in  every  item  of  doctrine,  but  they  all  experi- 
enced God  as  they  saw  Him  redemptively  revealed 
in  Jesus.  That  is  the  eternal  equivalent,  nay  the 
very  content  of  the  messianic  valuation  of  the  first 
Christians. 

Definitions,  however,  must  here  yield  to  words 
that  symbolize  without  limiting  appreciation.  The 
more  simply  such  appreciation  is  voiced,  the  easier 
do  one  man's  words  become  the  prophecy  of  an- 
other. Our  great  hymns  are  the  pledge  of  a  com- 
mon life  in  Christ.  A  Unitarian  wrote  "In  the 
cross  of  Christ  I  glory";  a  Roman  Catholic  wrote 
"Lead,  kindly  light";  a  Plymouth  Brother, 
"Jesus,  thy  name  I  love";  a  Congregationalist, 
"Jesus,  thou  joy  of  loving  hearts";  an  Episco- 
palian, "There  is  a  fountain  filled  with  blood"; 
a  Methodist,  "Love  divine,  all  love  excelling";  a 
Baptist,  "He  leadeth  me";  a  Presbyterian  boy  of 
ten  years,  "  Jesus  and  shall  it  ever  be  a  mortal  man 
ashamed  of  thee."  Yet  who  of  the  thousands  who 
daily  sing  these  songs  of  faith  asks  or  cares  whether 


298         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

their  authors  agreed  in  their  theories  of  the  atone- 
ment or  of  the  trinity  ? 

The  conscience-stirring,  faith-evoking  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  who,  amidst  the  flux  of  words  in  which 
men  have  tried  to  explain  his  person,  has,  through 
the  centuries,  satisfied  man's  hunger  for  a  know- 
able,  reconciled  God,  given  the  perfect  revelation 
of  the  spiritual  life  that  is  eternal,  and  proclaimed 
the  certainty  of  the  life  to  come,  is  an  unchanging 
element  of  a  Christianity  that  ever  seeks  to  adapt 
the  gospel  to  a  changing  order. 

If  the  modern  man  cannot  understand  or  accept  an 
inherited  Christology,  he  can  at  least  in  the  depths 
of  his  own  spiritual  life  serve  the  real  Person  whose 
redemptive  energy  doctrine  seeks  to  estimate  and 
enforce.  And  in  serving  him  he  will  know  the 
power  as  well  as  the  struggle  of  the  emancipated, 
victorious,  spiritual  life. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  POWER  OF  THE   SOCIAL  GOSPEL 

The  modem  mind  cannot  stop  with  the  indi- 
vidual. It  must  pass  on  to  the  extra-individual. 
We  are  seeing  now  as  never  before  that  a  man  is 
more  than  he  seems  to  be.  Whatever  may  be  our 
philosophy  as  to  heredity,  it  is  certainly  true  that 
every  life  inevitably  responds  in  one  way  or  another 
to  that  environment  in  which  it  is  integrated.  But 
that  environment  ceases  to  be  merely  external  to  the 
life.  The  two  constitute  a  situation  which  is  not 
susceptible  of  absolute  analysis,  but  which  must  be 
treated  as  a  unit.  The  tree  cannot  live  apart  from 
the  soil,  and  the  soil  lives  in  the  tree. 

Similarly  in  the  case  of  the  spiritual  life.  So 
dependent  is  it,  as  genuine  life,  upon  the  social 
order  in  which  it  finds  itself  as  to  be  inseparable 
therefrom.  That  outer  world  of  nature,  concerning 
which  we  speak  so  glibly,  is  truly  also  an  inner 
world,  part  and  parcel  of  ourselves.  Even  more 
intimate  if  possible  is  that  world  of  personality  of 
which  we  are  socially  ourselves  a  part.     Change  it 

299 


300         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

and  the  soul  changes.  Change  the  soul  and  the 
environment  is  changed.  For  both  alike  constitute 
that  spiritual  situation  in  which  we  come  to  con- 
sciousness, and  which  must  itself  progress  toward 
the  kingdom  of  God. 

Such  truths  as  this  are  not  novel.  They  are 
simply  reexpressed  in  terms  of  a  nascent  philosophy. 
Jesus  himself  taught  them  when  he  held  forth  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  that  of  which  the  individual  must 
be  a  member  in  order  to  taste  the  fullest  joy.  We 
have  already  seen  that,  eschatological  as  that  hope 
may  have  been,  it  never  ceased  to  be  social.  How- 
ever great  the  difference  between  the  Christian  con- 
ception of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  Jewish  ideal 
of  the  kingdom  of  saints  to  be  founded  at  Jeru- 
salem, they  are  alike  in  the  belief  that  the  final 
consummation  of  the  deliverance  of  the  individual 
will  be  in  his  fullness  of  life  in  an  ideal  society  within 
which  God  is  supreme. 

It  is  worth  while  dwelling  a  moment  upon  this 
truth  which  may  seem  hardly  more  than  a  platitude, 
for  many  of  the  world's  great  religious  teachers 
have  emphasized  the  necessity  of  the  holy  man's 
withdrawal  from  human  ties,  like  family  and  state 
and  business.  The  celibate,  rather  than  the  father, 
has  been  the  type  of  sanctity  to  more  than  one  great 


THE    POWER   OF   THE    SOCIAL   GOSPEL  3OI 

religion.     Even  in  our  own  world  there  are  those 

who   hold   that   religion   has   nothing   to   do   with 

social  problems  and  that  the  message  of  the  gospel 

is  exclusively  one  of  the  individual's  salvation  in  a 

world  to  come. 

I 

The  evangelizing  of  society  will  not  be  without 
struggle  and  vicarious  su£Fering  on  the  part  of  those 
who  dare  become  its  agents. 

Our  modem  world  suspects  that  the  gospel  is  not 
adjustable  to  our  social  life.  As  has  already  been 
indicated  in  a  previous  chapter,  the  modem  order 
which  has  resulted  from  the  century-long  develop- 
ment of  civilization  sets  its  special  approval  upon 
activity  and  strength.  Its  most  praised  man  is 
the  man  who  wins.  Courage,  daring,  limitless 
expenditure  of  oneself  and  one's  possessions,  a  ca- 
pacity to  control  men  and  to  beat  one's  enemies,  — 
these  are  the  acknowledged  virtues  of  a  commercial 
age.  And  to  a  considerable  extent  they  are  the 
virtues  of  culture.  For  the  man  of  culture,  how- 
ever much  he  may  sneer  at  commercialism,  has  a 
deep-seated  admiration  and  even  a  secret  envy  of 
the  man  whose  activities  find  results  that  are  con- 
crete and  measurable. 

Over  against  these  accepted  virtues  of  our  modem 


302         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

world  Stands  the  gospel  with  its  insistence  on  the 
primacy  of  love  and  its  inevitably  consequent  self- 
sacrifice.  It  is  little  wonder  that  an  age  that  builds 
Dreadnaughts  should  find  unintelligible  the  words 
of  Jesus  regarding  non-resistance  to  evil.  For 
how  is  it  possible  for  an  age  that  honors  the  vic- 
tories of  force  to  appreciate,  in  anything  more  than 
an  aesthetic  way,  the  victories  of  the  cross  ? 

All  this  is,  of  course,  only  another  form  of  the 
age-long  conflict  between  the  spiritual  and  the 
natural  orders,  of  which  the  gospel  is  so  conscious. 
The  doctrine  of  the  two  ages  which  came  over  into 
Christianity  as  an  integral  part  of  its  inheritance 
from  messianism  is  simply  an  unphilosophical  way 
of  looking  at  a  conflict  seen  by  all  thinkers  since 
thought  began.  The  world  of  spiritual  values  has 
always  been  confronted  with  the  world  of  material 
forces  and  standards.  But  this  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  saying  that  the  spiritual  values  as  de- 
scribed by  Jesus  presuppose  a  world  of  impassivity. 
Salvation  is  not  Nirvana.  Jesus'  call  to  love  is  a 
call  to  the  sublimest  heroism.  The  courage  of  the 
Greek  is  inferior  to  the  courage  of  the  Christian,  for 
physical  courage  may  be  simply  a  recklessness  bom 
of  a  lack  of  imagination.  The  gospel's  recognition 
of  the  supremacy  of  the  spiritual  order  demands  a 


THE   POWER   OF   THE    SOCIAL   GOSPEL         303 

spiritual  courage.  What  else  is  the  call  of  Jesus 
to  his  followers  to  take  up  their  crosses,  or  of  those 
martial  words  of  Paul  with  which  he  describes  the 
armor  of  the  man  of  God  or  urges  Timothy  to 
''fight  the  good  fight  of  faith?"  The  note  of  con- 
flict runs  throughout  the  entire  New  Testament. 
In  very  truth  Jesus  cast  fire  and  sword  upon  the 
earth.  The  Christian  in  his  devotion  to  the  life  of 
the  spirit  faces  innumerable  enemies  to  be  overcome 
at  all  costs.  And  some  of  these  enemies  are  of  his 
own  economic  household. 

The  most  striking  evidence  of  the  aggressive 
power  of  the  spiritual  life  to  defend  its  own  ideals 
against  even  internecine  assaults  is  the  life  of  Jesus. 
He  was  no  more  a  Nitzschean  superman  than  he 
was  effeminate.  While  other  men  have  cham- 
pioned spiritual  life  by  the  use  of  unspiritual  weapons, 
Jesus  refused  success  even  at  the  cost  of  the  king- 
dom of  the  spirit.  If  he  opposed  the  unspiritual 
world  of  Pharisaism,  he  did  it  wholly  with  the 
weapons  and  in  accord  with  the  laws  of  the  spiritual 
order.  Hypocrisy,  selfishness,  pride,  insincerity, — 
these  were  the  sins  he  attacked  in  his  opponents. 
His  language,  extreme  as  it  is,  will  always  be  found 
to  emphasize  the  supremacy  of  the  spiritual. 

Now  the  struggle  of  our  modem  day  is  much 


304    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

like  the  struggle  of  Jesus.  The  gospel  of  the  su- 
premacy of  the  spiritual  life  born  of  and  like  that 
of  the  God  of  Love,  is  confronted  by  modem  Sad- 
ducees,  who  deny  the  existence  of  everything  beyond 
the  physical  world;  by  modem  Pharisees,  who  are 
seeking  to  erect  a  hedge  of  dogma  about  the  gospel 
itself;  by  commercialized  traitors,  who  wish  to  make 
Christianity  a  propaganda  of  comfort.  Outside  of 
religious  affiliations  we  find  the  avowed  champions 
of  force  and  materialism  and  pleasure.  All  these 
enemies  must  be  met  in  strictest  loyalty  to  the  mo- 
tives of  the  spiritual  life,  in  patience,  without  mis- 
representation or  the  lowering  of  spiritual  self- 
respect.  But  such  opposition  requires  more  than 
mere  passive  resistance  to  evil.  In  the  same  pro- 
portion as  the  spiritual  life  is  controlled  by  the 
ideals  of  the  gospel  it  will  be  heroic.  The  sacrifice 
to  which  it  calls  is  that  of  everything  which  is  un- 
spiritual.  Such  a  conflict  demands  a  heroism 
vastly  more  difficult  than  that  of  the  battle  field, 
and  a  devotion  to  the  rights  of  the  community  far 
more  searching  than  that  of  even  patriotism  itself. 

II 

It  goes  without  saying  that  sucL  a  conflict  can- 
not be  waged  in  the  spirit  of  academic  neutrality. 


THE    POWER   OF   THE    SOCIAL   GOSPEL         305 

Among  all  the  constructive  forces  none  is  mightier 
than  a  socialized  hatred  of  that  which  is  lower  than 
the  known  best.  Good  men  have  always  been  haters 
of  the  bad.  Bad  men  have  been  haters  of  the  good. 
As  Paul  says,  "The  flesh  lusteth  against  the 
spirit  and  the  spirit  against  the  flesh,  for  these  are  con- 
trary the  one  to  the  other."  Throughout  human 
history  great  movements  have  come  as  men  have 
hated  unrighteousness  in  institutions  and  practices. 
No  reform  or  revolution  ever  was  successful  on  any 
other  condition.  It  is  such  hatred  which  distin- 
guishes the  practical  reformer  who  knows  good  can- 
not be  erected  except  on  the  ruins  of  that  which  is  bad 
from  the  doctrinaire.  No  man  ever  illustrated  this 
better  than  Jesus.  In  him  we  see  not  only  the  ideal 
champion  of  everything  that  is  pure  and  of  good 
repute,  but  also  the  irrespressible  hater  of  everything 
that  is  low  and  mean  and  hypocritical.  The  posses- 
sion of  this  sort  of  hatred  makes  love  more  than  good 
nature.  How  can  a  man  be  devoted  to  the  spiritual 
life  without  fighting  all  that  opposes  its  very  exist- 
ence ?     He  that  is  not  for  Jesus  is  against  him. 

1.   The  social  power  of  the  gospel  will  be  com-    ' 
mensurate  with  its  power  to  rouse  a  hatred  of  sin, 
—  not  of  sin  as  a  theological  abstraction,  but  of  sin 
as  we  have  seen  it  actually  working  its  way  out  in  op- 


306         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

pression  and  sorrow  and  personal  decay,  whether  it 
be  in  the  world  of  politics  or  of  industry  or  of  the 
home.  The  Christian  community  may  not  have  the 
impatient  hatred  of  capitalism  which  gives  vigor  to 
socialism,  but  it  must  give  no  quarter  to  any 
social  institution  that  makes  material  surplus  su- 
preme, whether  it  favor  the  capitalist  or  the  laborer. 
The  Christian  cannot  be  content  to  hold  to  ideals ; 
he  must  fight  the  enemy  of  ideals.  The  sword  of 
the  spirit  is  not  for  full-dress  occasions. 

The  ability  to  make  such  hatred  of  evil  a  nucleus 
for  the  defense  of  Christian  ideals  is  to  be  seen  every- 
where in  our  modern  life,  though  not  always  in  the 
widest  possible  communities.  There  is  the  hatred 
of  the  liquor  traffic,  particularly  of  the  saloon,  which 
has  proved  itself  in  concerted  action;  there  is  the 
hatred  of  the  white  slave  traffic,  which  is  developing 
into  a  national  movement ;  there  is  the  hatred  of  op- 
pression, superstition,  and  hypocrisy,  which,  though 
by  no  means  socialized  as  yet,  is  appreciably  a  nucleus 
not  only  of  denunciation  but  of  constructive  idealism. 
In  all  quarters  hatred  of  that  which  destroys  is  an 
ally  of  that  which  is  helping  to  build  up. 

2.  It  is  no  reply  to  such  an  estimate  of  the  severer 
side  of  spiritual  life  as  it  appears  in  the  gospel  to  say 
that  we  must  be  tolerant.     Tolerance  does  not  ex- 


THE    POWER   OF   THE    SOCIAL   GOSPEL  307 

tend  over  to  sin.  The  scientific  spirit  as  it  touches 
the  religious  should  not  be  permitted  to  take  from 
the  modern  man  his  sense  of  the  difference  between 
goodness  and  badness.  For  tolerance,  even  in  the 
region  of  beliefs,  too  often  is  only  a  euphemism  for 
indifference.  Real  tolerance  is  thoroughly  consist- 
ent with  a  passionate  hatred  of  everything  ignoble 
and  demoralizing.  It  is  well  to  emphasize  this  dis- 
tinction. For  the  modern  man  is  tempted  to  look 
on  other  people's  religious  hopes  and  convictions 
much  as  a  traveler  looks  out  upon  the  people  of  a  land 
through  which  he  journeys.  He  is  an  observer,  not  a 
missionary.  Foreigners  do  not  live  as  he  lives,  do 
not  dress  as  he  dresses,  but  he  does  not  undertake  to 
convert  them.  Thus  in  the  case  of  his  neighbors. 
They  do  not  believe  as  he  believes ;  they  do  not  think 
as  he  thinks.  But  he  does  not  care  to  discuss  matters 
with  them.  Let  one  of  them  attempt  to  convert 
him,  and  he  hardly  knows  whether  to  consider  the 
attempt  an  insult  or  material  for  an  after-dinner  story. 
It  is  a  sad  mistake  to  call  this  attitude  of  mind  tol- 
erance. A  man  must  have  moral  convictions  before 
he  can  possess  that  virtue.  Those  polite  writers 
who  regard  religion  as  a  survival  of  some  prehistoric 
ancestor  and  prefer  devotion  to  the  social  organ- 
ism which  they  have  invented  to  a  God  whom  they 


308         THE    GOSPEL   AND  THE   MODERN   MAN 

are  attempting  to  expose,  can  hardly  be  expected  to 
appreciate  other  men's  sensitiveness  to  their  attack 
on  those  religious  convictions  that  have  become  the 
basis  of  morality  itself.  Those  men  who  light- 
heartedly  remove  these  religious  bases  of  definite 
Christian  morality  in  the  name  of  a  scientific  method 
are  no  more  necessarily  tolerant  than  is  the  surgeon 
who  performs  a  successful  operation  on  a  patient  who 
dies.  Even  when  they  are  willing  that  a  man  should 
believe  something,  they  do  not  want  him  to  believe  it 
too  vigorously.  Yet  even  they  are  very  apt  to  be  in- 
tolerant when  they  believe  their  indifference  is  threat- 
ened. The  man  who  holds  that  he  is  morally  better 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  his  beliefs  is  no  more 
rasping  in  his  criticism  of  critics  than  is  the  man  who 
rejoices  in  his  belief  that  he  believes  little  or  nothing. 
There  is  no  dogmatism  so  intolerant  as  that  of  un- 
belief. 

Tolerance  is  the  child  of  conviction  and  love.  It 
never  had  any  other  parentage.  To  believe  strongly 
and  yet  doubt  one's  omniscience  is  no  small  achieve- 
ment, but  to  believe  strongly  and  yet  permit  a  man 
who  does  not  agree  with  you  theologically  also  to 
believe  strongly  is  one  of  the  supreme  achievements 
of  the  spiritual  life.  Fanaticism  easily  becomes  a 
constructive  force  with  fanatics,  but  the  tolerance 


THE   POWER   OF   THE    SOCIAL   GOSPEL         309 

that  the  gospel  preaches  is  a  constructive  force  with 
men  whose  work  outlasts  generations  of  fanaticism. 
For,  changing  the  center  of  interest  from  doctrine  to 
life,  it  demands  community  in  the  spiritual  life  which 
opposes  the  enemies  of  that  life  whoever  they  may  be. 
It  must  oppose  a  philosophy  that  denies  supremacy 
to  the  spiritual  order  in  theory,  and  it  must  even  more 
vigorously  oppose  customs,  institutions,  and  privi- 
leges that  deny  it  in  fact.  A  man  cannot  serve  God 
and  any  form  of  materialism.  The  good  fight  of 
faith  is  not  a  sham  battle. 

Ill 

The  social  organ  of  a  spiritual  life  that  is  aggres- 
sive on  both  its  destructive  and  its  constructive  sides 
is  the  church. 

Christian  experience  has  large  social  significance 
only  when  it  is  institutionalized.  Christianity  is  not 
a  philosophy,  but  a  movement  inaugurated  by  his- 
torical persons.  Of  necessity  it  involved  its  institu- 
tions. The  church  is  built  upon  the  foundation 
of  the  apostle  as  truly  as  that  of  the  prophet. 
Each  of  these  two  servants  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
had  his  message,  but  the  prophet's  work  was  done 
when  he  uttered  his  warning  and  his  exhortation. 
Men  might  then  make  their  choice  between  faith  and 


3IO    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

unfaith.  But  the  apostle  institutionalized  his  mes- 
sage in  the  church ;  therefore  has  it  become  a  social 
power. 

No  social  institution  is  at  the  present  time  sub- 
jected to  more  criticism  than  that  of  organized 
Christianity.  Particularly  is  it  customary  to  condemn 
the  church  of  to-day  because  of  the  mistakes  of  the 
church  of  yesterday.  And  such  criticism  is  not  with- 
out its  justification.  The  higher  the  ideals  of  an  insti- 
tution, the  greater  harvest  of  spiritual  goods  do  we 
rightly  demand  of  it.  Any  student  of  history  knows 
only  too  well  how  far  the  church  has  yielded  to  the 
limitations  set  by  the  simple  fact  that  its  members 
are  human  and  subject  to  the  laws  of  social  solidarity 
and  process.  In  all  times  it  has  found  its  methods 
as  well  as  its  teachings  conditioned  by  the  state  of 
society  in  the  midst  of  which  it  lived.  In  the  same 
proportion,  also,  in  which  it  has  become  identified 
with  the  state  and  has  offered  opportunity  for  political 
ambition  has  it  attracted  men  of  unspiritual  type  to 
its  membership  and  often  to  its  leadership. 

But  such  criticism  may  overreach  itself.  I  am  far 
enough  from  saying  that  the  church,  whether  Greek, 
Roman,  or  Protestant,  has  been  all  that  it  should  have 
been,  but  he  is  a  prejudiced  critic  who  fails  to  see 
the  wonderful  contribution  which  the  church,  in  even 


THE    POWER    OF    THE    SOCIAL    GOSPEL  3H 

its  imperfect  institutionalizing  of  the  ideals  of  the 
gospel,  has  made  to  the  development  of  the  spiritual 
life  of  the  race.  Insincere,  selfish,  bigoted  as  eccle- 
siasticism  has  too  often  been,  cautious  as  are  many  of 
its  present  leaders  in  making  any  genuinely  social 
application  of  its  teachings,  it  is  undeniable  that  at  all 
times,  whether  past  or  present,  the  church  has  been 
morally  superior  to  its  age.  The  modern  man  who 
loses  patience  with  it  as  an  institution,  who  sees  only 
its  faults  and  magnifies  its  too  frequent  recurrence 
to  the  authority  of  organization  rather  than  to  the 
authority  of  the  spirit,  is  untrue  to  the  very  concep- 
tion of  historical  process  by  which  his  thinking  is 
controlled.  The  church  of  to-day  has  its  obscurant 
leaders ;  its  leaders  who  have  lost  their  bearings ;  its 
leaders  who  are  apparently  anxious  to  throw  it  into 
bankruptcy;  but  it  is  none  the  less  the  one  great  in- 
stitution of  the  times  which  is  deliberately  endeavor- 
ing to  socialize  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
spiritual  life  as  they  are  set  forth  in  the  life  and  teach- 
ing of  Jesus.  It  is  indispensable  in  the  same  pro- 
portion as  he  is  indispensable.  The  modem  man 
should  throw  his  weight  into  its  already  awakened 
life. 

Such  an  obligation  is  all  the  greater  because  the 
church  needs  the  enlarged  social  sympathies  which 


312         THE   GOSPEL   AND   THE   MODERN   MAN 

are  his.  Take  our  modern  world  as  a  whole,  and  it 
will  be  found  true  that  those  men  and  women  who 
are  most  intent  upon  social  regeneration  are  those 
possessed  of  the  modem  spirit.  But  it  will  be  just 
as  true  that  if  their  spiritual  genealogy  could  be 
traced,  it  would  be  found  to  be  rooted  in  the  Christian 
church.  It  is  a  sad  mistake  from  the  point  of  view 
of  both  the  church  and  of  society,  to  have  their 
broad  sympathies  and  their  new  perception  of  social 
values  lost  to  the  Christian  community. 

In  the  same  proportion  as  this  new  social  sympathy 
gives  content  to  the  expression  of  the  spiritual  life 
will  it  be  in  accord  with  the  real  purpose  of  the  gospel. 
For,  restrained  by  the  expectations  of  the  speedy 
coming  of  Christ  as  were  the  early  Christians,  their 
new  life,  begotten  by  faith  in  Christ,  had  its  inevitable 
social  results.  Modern  Christians  will  be  true  to  the 
principle  of  the  gospel  when  they,  too,  deal  with  the 
organic,  rather  than  the  accidental,  aspects  of  the 
regenerate  life.  And  their  great  mediums  of  expres- 
sion will  be  the  churches  themselves. 

2.  Within  the  church  the  hatred  of  social  in- 
justice and  sin  can  be  both  institutionalized  and  pro- 
tected from  developing  into  merely  class  hatred. 
Whatever  may  be  said  of  individual  churches  the 
church  universal  includes  all  strata  of  society.     In 


/ 


THE   POWER   OF   THE   SOCIAL   GOSPEL         313 

the  same  proportion  as  they  realize  their  real  commu- 
nity of  life  will  denominations  and  schools  of  Chris- 
tians divert  their  energies  from  internecine  warfare 
to  an  attack  upon  those  materialistic  forces  which 
constitute  their  common  enemy. 

The  atmosphere  of  struggle  is  dangerous  to  every 
earnest  soul.  Hatred  of  sin  if  it  be  not,  as  in  the  case 
of  Jesus,  subject  to  the  control  of  love,  may  lead  to 
hateful  dispositions.  In  making  the  destruction  of 
abuse  and  the  punishment  of  oppression  a  part  of  his 
self-expression,  a  man  needs  continually  to  be  taught 
that  such  negative  activity  is  preparatory  to  the 
constructive  process  along  lines  of  brotherhood. 
Socialism  sees  this  in  part,  but  the  Christian 
church  will  find  here  an  outstanding  opportunity 
for  social  service. 

3.  The  church  must  stand  for  the  worth  of  men 
in  all  efforts  for  amelioration.  For  it  preeminently 
recognizes  the  fact  that  such  worth  is  to  be  found, 
not  in  men  as  they  are,  but  in  men  as  they  can  be- 
come through  the  making  of  the  spiritual  life  su- 
preme. Here,  if  anywhere,  do  we  find  the  social 
power  of  the  evangelic  message  of  the  eternal  life. 

The  first  great  requisite  of  any  such  spiritualiz- 
ing of  social  evolution  is  a  profound  sympathy 
with  all  those  who  are  distressed  in  mind,  body,  or 


314    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

estate.  Like  its  Christ,  the  really  loving  soul  bears 
the  infirmities  of  the  social  order.  Nor  is  this  any 
easy  service.  It  is  one  of  the  anomalies  of  altruism 
that  it  tends  to  protect  itself  in  its  ministrations  to 
others  with  the  callus  of  professionalism.  Nor  is 
this  to  be  indiscriminately  condemned.  We  do  not 
want  the  physician's  sympathy,  but  his  skill.  Simi- 
larly, all  amelioration  of  the  diseases  of  society, 
whether  they  be  economic,  political,  or  domestic, 
must  be  controlled  by  an  intelligent  diagnosis.  Un- 
enlightened sympathy  may  be  as  injurious  in  the 
social  world  as  in  the  medical. 

But  this  is  farthest  from  saying  that  the  Christian 
life  should  not  be  controlled  by  sympathy.  It  has  too 
often  been  true  that  the  church  has  been  content  to 
save  individuals  from  the  world  without  countenanc- 
ing the  aspirations  for  greater  social  justice  in  this 
world  on  the  part  of  the  very  persons  whom  it  would 
save  in  the  next.  It  is  always  easier  to  organize 
crusades  to  rescue  some  sacred  place  from  far  dis- 
tant Turks  than  to  liberate  the  peasantry  on  one's 
own  estates.  It  is  always  easier  to  move  a  church 
to  the  suburbs  than  to  maintain  it  as  a  contribution 
to  the  spiritual  needs  of  the  slums  or  the  boarding- 
house  district.  I  am  not  surprised  that  men  who  are 
devoting  their  lives  to  obtaining  social  justice  for  the 


THE    POWER   OF   THE    SOCIAL   GOSPEL         315 

oppressed  should  grow  impatient  of  an  institution 
which,  while  proclaiming  the  supremacy  of  the  spirit- 
ual worth  of  man,  is  too  often  indifferent  to  cus- 
toms and  institutions  which  treat  men  as  impersonal 
cogs  in  political  or  industrial  machines.  We  need 
to  learn  the  great  lesson  of  Jesus  that  devotion  to 
things  of  the  spirit  must  express  itself  as  social 
sympathy  in  such  concrete  situations  as  of  citizen- 
ship, marriage,  industry,  and  culture. 

But  in  its  sympathy  with  the  spiritual  needs  and 
possibilities  of  humanity  and  in  its  opposition  to 
everything  that  is  hostile  to  spiritual  worth,  the 
church  should  not  be  led  into  indiscriminate  at- 
tempts to  supplant  the  work  of  other  social  insti- 
tutions. Its  primary  interest  is  not  in  good  sewers, 
shorter  hours  of  labor,  a  living  wage,  and  old-age 
pensions.  It  is  rather  in  the  development  of  the 
spiritual  life  which  is  threatened  by  a  refusal  to 
grant  such  rights.  But  organized  religion  cannot 
be  indifferent  to  evils.  It  cannot  substitute  a  com- 
placent hope  as  to  individuals  for  an  earnest  effort 
to  mitigate  conditions  that  limit  the  number  of  such 
individuals  more  heartlessly  than  any  doctrine  of 
election.  The  recognition  of  social  solidarity  is 
compelling  the  modern  man  to  bring  the  ideals  of 
the  gospel  into  transforming  relationship  with  the 


3l6    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

social  forces  themselves.  Thus  in  its  work  of 
ameliorating  the  condition  of  those  who  are  suffer- 
ing from  the  miseries  which  have  resulted  from  civili- 
zation, the  church  can  often  render  its  best  service  in 
cooperation  with  social  institutions  like  hospitals, 
organized  charities,  civic  reform.  For  charit}^  itself 
is  in  constant  need  of  being  inspired  to  fasten  its 
eye  singly  upon  the  worth  of  human  souls  as  well  as  of 
human  bodies.  Professional  good  Samaritans  should 
be  helped  to  preserve  the  power  to  sympathize  per- 
sonally with  the  unfortunate.  Impersonal  charity 
is  on  the  road  to  impersonal  sociological  technique. 

4.  If  the  church  is  more  than  a  good  Samaritan 
it  must  undertake  to  evangelize  the  great  formative 
forces  which  are  making  to-morrow.  Only  thus 
can  it  socialize  constructively  the  spiritual  life  of  its 
individual  members.  Social  discontent,  the  up- 
ward movement  of  the  wage-earning  classes,  the 
rapid  consolidation  of  social  classes,  the  absorbing 
question  of  socializing  capital,  are  all  to  a  high  de- 
gree in  danger  of  substituting  economic  and  even 
more  pronouncedly  materialistic  ideals  for  that 
spiritual  impulse  which  they  really  embody.  To 
socialize  the  spiritual  life  means  to  spiritualize  the 
formative  forces  of  society  by  means  of  individuals 
trained  to  social  sympathies.    But  just  as  truly  it 


THE   POWER   OF   THE    SOCIAL   GOSPEL         317 

means  new  legislation,  institutions,  customs,  which 
embody  the  spiritual  rather  than  the  economic 
values  of  men  and  women;  the  extension  of  the 
principle  of  atonement  to  the  reconciliation  of 
social  classes,  as  it  once  reconciled  in  one  body  Jew 
and  Gentile;  the  inspiration  of  such  threatening 
social  forces  as  the  desire  for  play  and  amusements. 
At  this  point  the  function  of  the  church  is,  per- 
haps, more  clearly  seen  by  the  modern  man  than  by 
the  man  who  has  standardized  the  past.  But  such 
men  themselves  need  to  be  taught  that  sociology  is 
not  the  substitute  for  the  gospel.  For  they  are  con- 
stantly exposed  to  the  temptation  to  withdraw  sym- 
pathy from  organized  Christianity  and  to  live  a  life 
of  impassioned  helpfulness  to  their  world  in  oppo- 
sition to  what  they  allege  to  be  only  the  hypo- 
critical profession  of  the  principles  of  the  gospel. 

A  Every  doctrine  of  the  Christian  church  has  its  social 
aspect,  but  most  of  all  those  doctrines  which  center 
about  the  ultimate  values  of  the  spiritual  life  —  faith 
and  love  and  Christlike  sacrifice  for  others. 

^  5.  The  gospel  must  socialize  the  spirit  of  Cal- 
vary. Society  cannot  be  saved  as  it  is.  It,  like  the 
individual,  must  partake  of  the  death  of  Christ. 
Love  cannot  fully  express  itself  while  our  social 
order   permits    selfishness    to    succeed.     Many    an 


3l8         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

institution  and  practice  must  be  ended.  Obviously 
such  a  putting  off  of  the  social  "flesh"  will  not  be 
without  cost.  Men  cling  tenaciously  to  illegitimate 
possessions,  whether  they  be  wealth,  privilege,  or 
prejudices,  and  they  abandon  them  with  agony. 
But  abandon  them  they  must  as  our  social  order 
comes  increasingly  under  the  sway  of  ideals  of  jus- 
tice and  love.  History  has  no  clearer  lesson.  The 
cry  of  little  children  with  lives  crushed  in  mills  and 
mines,  the  mute  appeal  of  ignorant  masses  forced 
toward  brutishness,  the  ever  louder  challenge  of 
women  forced  from  home  into  depressing  indus- 
tries, will  not  pass  unanswered.  Their  answer  will 
^  I  mean  loss.  One  great  mission  of  the  gospel  is  to 
educate  men  to  let  such  loss  come  as  sacrifice  rather 
than  as  coerced  surrender.  Such  education  cannot 
be  accomplished  overnight.  It  presupposes  slow- 
growing  social  sympathy  and  wise  counsels.  But 
without  it  social  progress  will  be  by  revolution 
rather  than  by  that  sacrificial  unfolding  of  love 
which  Jesus  illustrated  and  to  which  he  calls  men. 
If  such  socializing  of  the  spiritual  impulses  shall 
come  to  compel  an  extensive  reorganization  of  so- 
ciety, that  is  only  what  is  to  be  expected  if  every 
knee  is  to  bow  to  Jesus  Christ  and  the  will  of  God 
is  to  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven. 


THE   POWER   OF   THE    SOCIAL   GOSPEL         319 

Yet  even  the  prospect  of  a  new  social  order  is  not 
to  blind  the  Christian  community  to  its  unspectacular 
mission  to  the  spiritual  life  of  the  individual.  There 
may  be  regenerate  men  without  there  being  a  thor- 
foughly  regenerate  society;  but  a  regenerate  society 
j  cannot  be  composed  of  unregenerate  men.  We 
need  revivals  if  we  are  not  to  need  revolutions;  chil- 
dren growing  up  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord  more  than 
juvenile  courts;  illuminated  men  more  than  illumi- 
nating programs.  And  it  is  the  business  of  the 
church  to  see  that  such  men  are  forthcoming;  men 
of  vision,  of  social  sympathy,  with  consciences 
trained  from  childhood  to  see  the  moral  obligations 
of  corporations  and  labor  unions,  each  ready  to  take 
up  his  cross  and  to  teach  society  to  take  up  its  cross. 
Christians  need  to  be  taught  the  virility  of  such  sac- 
rificial life,  for  they  are  in  danger  of  being  feminized 
to  the  point  of  submission  to  a  laissez-faire  opti- 
mism. Society  needs  to  be  taught  to  share  in  the 
adventure  of  a  love  which  chooses  the  spiritual  in 
preference  to  the  merely  economic.  A  vicarious 
^  tenth  must  replace  the  submerged  tenth.  If  Christ- 
like activity  is  not  socialized,  social  evolution  will 
pass  through  a  materialistic  stage  in  which  there 
will  be  a  Caiaphas  and  a  Pilate  establishing  a  Cal- 
vary in  every  township. 


320         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN    MAN 

6.  No  defeat  of  the  immanent  God  can  be  final. 
That  is  the  supreme  message  of  the  gospel.  Gog 
and  Magog  with  all  their  hosts  cannot  withstand 
the  God  of  Law  and  Love.  His  kingdom  is  inevi- 
table. That  is  the  scepter  of  courage  and  hope  the 
gospel  stretches  out  to  men  who  are  striving  to 
regenerate  the  social  order.  They  are  working 
together  with  the  God  of  a  process  that  has  a  goal, 
and  in  the  midst  of  human  nature  which,  with  a 
Christ  in  it,  is  salvable.  This  age  can  really  be 
made  a  better  age,  because  God  can  work  through 
institutions  and  lives  devoted  to  spiritual  good. 
To  doubt  this  is  to  doubt  that  God  is  immanent  in 
His  world  and  even  more  to  doubt  that  society  is 
being  brought  by  Him  into  fuller  expression  of  those 
higher  forces  which  have  already  appeared  in 
individuals. 

It  is  here  that  we  see  the  social  significance  of  the 
^  prayer  for  the  doing  of  God's  will  on  earth  which 
Jesus  taught  his  disciples ;  of  that  splendid  optimism 
which  lay  in  the  belief  that  he  was  the  Christ;  of 
that  hope  which  awaited  his  messianic  activity; 
and  of  that  faith  which  saw  in  God  not  only  Creator 
but  Father.  To  teach  men  to  pray  that  prayer, 
to  share  in  that  optimism,  to  be  saved  by  that  hope, 
and  to  be  steadied  by  that  faith  is  the  business  of 


THE    POWER    OF    THE    SOCIAL   GOSPEL  32I 

theology  and  of  the  church.  We  need  to  pray  for 
the  coming  of  the  kingdom  no  less;  but  no  person 
can  honestly  pray  that  God's  will  shall  be  done 
without  undertaking  to  do  it.  In  the  same  pro- 
portion as  Christian  men  fail  at  this  point  will  they 
lose  the  support  of  those  heroic  souls  who  have 
given  themselves  to  the  furtherance  of  human  weal 
in  full  determination  to  improve  our  present  social 
order.  For  the  gospel  of  the  spiritual  life  is  greater 
than  the  church.  Only  as  the  church  is  a  servant 
of  the  kingdom  has  it  a  right  to  exist.  To  doubt 
\  that  God  is  working  in  extra-ecclesiastical  efforts  at 
social  betterment  is  to  come  dangerously  near  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the  same  propor- 
tion as  we  grasp  the  content  of  the  gospel  do  we  see 
that  God  brings  in  His  kingdom  by  any  man  who  is 
working  in  the  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  history 
of  the  fourth  and  the  seventeenth  centuries  shows 
lamentably  that  when  the  church  has  centered  at- 
tention upon  doctrinal  precision  it  has  become  a  non- 
conductor between  God  and  His  world.  But  such 
centuries  as  the  first  and  the  sixteenth  show  also  that 
it  has  been  the  chief  channel  through  which  God 
has  led  men  forward  toward  the  abolition  of  un- 
righteous privilege  and  the  elevation  of  the  worth  of 
human  life.     The  twentieth  century  is  already  de- 


322         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN    MAN 

manding  a  church  that  works  rather  than  a  church 
that  anathematizes. 

Such  facts  are  guideposts  to  the  modem  man  who 
has  made  the  gospel  his  own.  Truth  can  never  be 
estabhshed  by  argument  alone;  it  must  work  out 
vitally  the  peaceable  fruits  of  righteousness  in  a 
very  real  world  that  will  move  either  toward  God 
or  toward  Mammon.  Such  fruits,  since  they  are 
in  accord  with  God's  will,  must  make  the  gospel 
appear  more  gloriously  true  and  final.  Faith  with- 
out works  is  not  merely  dead;    it  was  still-bom. 

IV 

The  task  of  making  the  spiritual  values  of  the 
gospel  supreme  throughout  our  modem  life  is  made 
more  difficult  because  of  the  present  transitional 
situation  within  the  church  itself.  The  fact  that 
the  spiritual  life  must  find  its  expression  in  accord 
with  elements  of  culture  and  other  phases  of  our 
experience  will  always  serve  to  bring  about  diver- 
gence of  opinion.  There  never  has  been  a  time 
when  all  Christians  agreed  as  to  all  theological 
formulas  in  which  the  gospel  should  be  expressed. 
The  New  Testament  church  had  its  parties;  the 
church  of  the  first  century  its  innumerable  heretics ; 
the  Middle  Ages  its  sects  and  rival  schoolmen;  the 


THE    POWER   OF   THE    SOCIAL   GOSPEL         323 

period  of  the  Reformation  its  Anabaptists.  So, 
too,  the  modem  world  has  its  divisions  between 
Greek,  Roman,  and  Protestant  Christianity,  and 
among  Protestants  the  extraordinary  spectacle  of 
innumerable  denominations  and  sects.  Yet,  in- 
credible as  it  sounds,  all  this  division  and  sub- 
division is  an  attempt  to  set  forth  in  some  desirable 
polity  and  doctrine  that  which  is  common  to  all 
Christians  —  faith  in  Jesus  and  a  consequent  new- 
ness of  life  due  to  fellowship  with  God. 

Of  late  there  has  developed  a  cross  division  of  these 
historical  alignments,  notwithstanding  the  steady 
movement  toward  ecclesiastical  cooperation  be- 
tween the  great  bodies  of  Protestantism.  This  new 
grouping  is  along  lines  which  are  determined  by 
the  presuppositions  with  which  men  come  to  the 
exposition  of  the  gospel.  On  the  one  side  there  are 
Protestants  who  would  have  all  spiritual  life  con- 
trolled by  the  formulas  of  the  past,  thus  standard- 
izing the  theological  status  quo  which  was  set  in  the 
days  of  Luther  and  Calvin  and  in  some  cases  even 
in  the  days  of  Augustine.  On  the  other  hand  are 
men  who  would  make  the  spiritual  life  begotten  by 
the  gospel  superior  to  a  doctrinal  conformity,  which 
is  only  another  word  for  an  impracticable  uniform- 
ity.    They    seek    correct    doctrines    but    not    doc- 


324    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  MODERN  MAN 

trinal  correctness.  They  are  Modernists  within 
Protestantism.  The  situation  is  strikingly  like 
that  which  existed  in  the  New  Testament  church 
subsequent  to  the  appearance  of  Paul.  The  primi- 
tive Christian  insisted  upon  the  maintenance  of 
divinely  authorized  Mosaic  legalism  as  a  part  of 
the  new  religion.  The  Pauline  group,  composed  of 
people  whose  past  was  radically  different  from  that 
of  the  primitive  Christians,  insisted  that  the  primary 
thing  was  not  conformity  to  God's  will  as  known  to 
the  past  but  to  God's  will  as  expressed  in  what  the 
primitive  Christians  of  Jerusalem  themselves  be- 
lieved to  be  paramount  —  the  new  life  in  the  spirit 
induced  by  faith  in  Jesus  as  Christ. 

In  our  modern  world  of  Protestantism  there  is  the 
primitive  Jerusalem  church  of  doctrinal  precision, 
and  there  is  the  Gentile  church  of  the  modern  mind. 
Neither  can  claim  to  be  the  superior  of  the  other  in 
point  of  spiritual  life,  for  each  confesses  the  ex- 
periential knowledge  that  the  fundamental  element 
of  all  faith  is  the  gospel  of  salvation  revealed  by 
Jesus.  The  real  line  of  cleavage  lies  in  the  differ- 
ent values  placed  upon  the  doctrinal  legalism  of 
ecclesiasticism.  One  party  is  perfectly  sincere  in 
insisting  that  there  is  no  genuine  Christianity  ex- 
cept as  men  believe  in  the  infallibility  and  perma- 


THE    POWER    OF    THE    SOCIAL   GOSPEL         325 

nent  authority  of  the  inspired  Scripture,  the  Nicaean 
formulas  for  the  person  of  Jesus  and  the  Anselmic, 
legal  formulas  for  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement. 
The  other  party  insists  that  it  too  would  have  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  but  that  it  believes  in  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Scriptures  as  the  progressive  revela- 
tion of  God's  will  known  in  the  experience  of  the 
spiritual  life  of  God;  in  Jesus  as  a  unique  and 
individualized  revelation  of  God  in  history  with- 
out full  pronouncement  as  to  the  metaphysical, 
premundane  nature  of  a  Logos;  in  the  necessity  of 
the  death  of  the  Christ  as  an  integral  part  of  his 
vocation  as  Saviour.  Yet  to  the  one  party  as  to  the 
other  God  has  spoken  in  the  regenerate  life  bom  of 
Himself.  To  both  the  gospel  is  a  positive,  vital 
message  of  salvation. 

Can  these  two  parties  work  together  within  those 
denominations  which  still  seem  economically  needed 
as  arms  of  the  army  of  the  Lord?  Or  shall  Prot- 
estantism be  still  further  divided  at  the  very  mo- 
ment when  it  is  beginning  what  seems  an  epoch- 
making  cooperation  of  all  Protestant  forces  in  the 
interests  of  a  united  front  against  evil? 

If  the  sane  counsels  of  the  Spirit  prevail,  there 
can  be  but  one  answer  to  such  questions.  The  two 
wings  of  Protestantism  can  unite  in  the  common 


326         THE    GOSPEL   AND   THE    MODERN   MAN 

campaign  of  evangelicalism.  To  keep  for  a  mo- 
ment the  military  figure,  let  each  arm  have  its  uni- 
form, its  accoutrements,  its  organization,  its  com- 
pany drillmasters,  and  its  battle  flags.  But  let 
them  remember  that  they  have  the  same  watchword, 
the  same  general,  and  the  same  Fatherland-  Let 
them  fight  their  common  enemy,  not  each  other. 
We  have  been  for  many  a  year  singing  that  we  are 
marching  like  a  mighty  army.  It  is  time  to  stop 
marching.    The  engagement  has  begun ! 

Thus  we  reach  the  end  of  our  discussion  at  the 
very  heart  of  the  gospel.  The  spiritual  life  is  not  a 
social  surplus  to  be  enjoyed  only  by  those  who  have 
shared  in  the  economic  surplus.  It  is  our  common 
birthright  as  men  and  our  common  inspiration  as 
Christians.  The  gospel  is  not  a  philosophy  but  a 
revelation  of  the  supremacy  of  this  spiritual  life  as, 
perfectly  embodied  in  the  historical  Jesus,  it  con- 
quered the  unspiritual  order  embodied  in  nature, 
in  sin,  and  in  death.  In  making  it  the  controlling 
factor  in  our  own  spiritual  self-expression,  we  are 
not  following  cunningly  devised  fables;  we  are  not 
fighting  against  the  constructive  Will  of  an  ever 
evolving  universe;  we  are  not  committed  to  words 
and  theories  of  the  past.     We  are  rather  repeating 


THE    POWER    OF   THE    SOCIAL   GOSPEL         327 

in  our  day  the  continuously  expanding  experience 
of  God  as  He  is  known  in  Jesus.  The  meaning  of 
that  experience  we  shall  make  intelligible  to  ourselves 
in  concepts  drawn  from  our  own  world-view,  but 
such  doctrines  thus  formed  will  be  but  functional. 
Our  children  and  our  children's  children  will  repeat 
the  process  as  in  their  turn  they  seek  the  equivalents 
of  experience  in  truths  that  shall  be  to  them  the  cor- 
relate of  reality.  But  though  theologies  be  re- 
newed in  the  future  as  in  the  past,  the  gospel  as  the 
revelation  in  time  of  the  eternal  verities  of  God  and 
the  human  soul  will  be  final.  Orthodoxies  will 
replace  orthodoxies,  but  evangelicalism  as  a  loyalty 
of  the  spiritual  life  to  Jesus  Christ  will  abide. 
Modern  men  will  succeed  modem  men,  but  he,  the 
Christ,  will  continue  to  evoke  the  faith  and  adoring 
love  of  countless  generations.  Physical  life  will 
end,  but  the  life  of  the  spirit  will  abide  with  its  Lord 
who  is  Spirit.  Social  orders  will  replace  outgrown 
social  orders,  but  brotherhood  will  expand  increas- 
ingly until  the  Great  Day  when  Jesus  shall  be  su- 
preme and  the  successive  approaches  of  the  spiritual 
life  toward  him  as  its  Type  and  Saviour  shall  have 
culminated  in  a  social  order  in  which  sin  shall  be 
crushed,  Christlike  souls  shall  constitute  the  De- 
mocracy of  the  Spirit,  and  God  shall  be  all  in  all. 


INDEX 


Ad  interim    ethics,  alleged  of   the 

gospel,  262  f. 
Apocalypse,    place    of,    in    gospel, 

21. 
Arnold,  Matthew,  153. 
Atonement,    Pauline    teaching    as 

to,  185  f.;    later  views  of,    186- 

191;    fundamental  element,  193. 
Augustine,  147,  295. 
Authority,  and  the  modem    man, 

51;  of  the  gospel,  272,  282. 

Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  296. 
Browning,  140,  146. 

Christ,  term  defined,  27,  114;  con- 
tent of  acceptance  as,  114  f. 

Christian  Science  and  the  deUv- 
erance  from  evil,  .147  f. 

Christianity,  a  dehistoricalized, 
92. 

Church,  function  of,  301  f.,  309  f.; 
need  of  cooperation  in,  322  f. 

Consubstantial,  force  of,  122-124. 

Creeds,  inevitable,  136. 

Criticism,  extreme  results  of,  195; 
general  tendency  of,  108. 

Death,  Hebrew  thought  of,  209  f.; 

and  sin,  177. 
Dehverance,    in    the    teaching    of 

Jesus,  9;    not  mere  rescue,  273. 
Devils,  belief  in,  37. 
Dogma,  as  opposed  to  the  gospel, 

3-7,  63. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  173. 
Eschatology,    in    the     history    of 

theology,  2>yy    in  the  gospel,  23; 

equivalents    of,    82-85;      catas- 


trophic element  not  to  be  over- 
emphasized, 265. 

Eternal  life,  265,  274.  See  Spir- 
itual life. 

Evangelicalism  vs.  orthodoxy,  279. 

Evil,  problem  of,  140-143,  146  f.; 
deliverance  from,  148. 

Evolution,  modern  man's  belief  in, 
36  f.;  goal  of,  245. 

Eucken,  270. 

Faith,  justification  by,  181. 
Freedom  of  the  spiritual  life,  282  f. 

God,  sovereignty  of,  29;  imma- 
nence of,  43;  as  Father,  29; 
equivalent  of,  81-82;  as  love  of, 
5,  204;  existence  of,  143-146; 
asSavioxir,  183;  ethical  unity  of, 
as  seen  in  the  death  of  Jesus, 
202-204. 

Gospel,  in  teaching  of  Jesus,  7  f.; 
in  the  teaching  of  Paul,  12;  as 
a  message  of  dehverance,  10; 
only  one  in  New  Testament,  16, 
18;  historical  elements  of,  24- 
31;  methods  of  determining 
content  of,  3  f.;  how  not  to  be 
brought  to  our  modern  world, 
66-71;  how  to  be  brought  to 
the  modern  man,  71-90;  con- 
tent of,  75-77;  subject  to  his- 
torical inquiry,  93;  Jesus  as 
substance  of,  109  f.;  and  sin, 
172  f.;  alleged  impracticabiUty 
of,  241  f.;  authority  of,  272 ; 
salvation  in,  273-277;  as  sug- 
gestion, 280  f.;  and  hatred  of 
sin,  305  f. 

Gospels,  when  written,  96. 


329 


33^ 


INDEX 


Haeckel,  143,  267. 

Hatred  of  sin,  304  f. 

Hauptman,  156. 

Historical  method  in  the  study  of 

religion,  42. 
Holy   Spirit,   in  relation  to  Jesus, 

132;    and  the  resurrection,  211; 

work  of,  in  the  soul,  288  f.,  293. 
Hymns,    expressions    of    spiritual 

life,  297. 

Immortality,  argument  for,  216  f. 
Individual,  goal  of  evolution,  245. 

Jesus,  birth  of,  129-132;  con- 
sciousness as  Messiah,  12;  his- 
torical character  of,  103  f.;  sig- 
nificance to  the  gospel,  109  f.; 
gospel  according  to,  10;  evokes 
faith  in  himself  as  Saviour,  112  f.; 
sinlessness  of,  116  f.;  tempta- 
tion of,  118;  as  a  revelation  of 
God,  121  f.;  expositions  of  his 
person  in  the  New  Testament, 
127  f.;  as  more  than  man,  132- 
138;  a  Saviour,  135  f.,  150  f.; 
of  the  creeds,  136-138;  faith  of, 
159;  significance  of  death  of, 
191  f.,  194  f.;  heroism  of,  302  f,; 
resurrection  of,  159,  224-234. 

John,  gospel  according  to,  interpre- 
tation of  Jesus,  107  f. 

Josephus,  on  resurrection,  210. 

Justice  vs.  brotherhood,  253. 

Logos,  as  incarnate  in  Jesus,  128- 

129. 
Luther,  Martin,  296. 

Messianic  hope,  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  10  f.;  equivalents  of,  81- 
86. 

Metaphysics,  modern  man  and,  51. 

Miracle,  46. 

Modern  man,  presuppositions  of, 
ch.  2;  in  the  church,  23  f.;  de- 
fined, 54  f.;  attitude  toward 
Jesus,  113;  non-religious  type 
of,  266  f. 


Moody,  William  Vaughn,  quoted, 

155- 
Myers,  F.  W.  H.,  223. 

Naturalism,   champions  of,   266. 
Nietzsche,     156;       position      dis- 
cussed, 249  f. 

Omar,  154. 

Paul,  relation  to  Jesus,  13  f.,  16  f.; 
gospel  according  to,  10;  esti- 
mate of  Jesus,  105  f.;  views  of 
the  preexistent  Christ,  127-128; 
teaching  as  to  sin,  164;  as  to 
the  life  of  the  spirit,  278,  282, 
290  f. 

Pessimism,  153  f. 

Process,  modern  conception  of,  36, 
39- 

Raymond  Lull,  296. 

Regeneration,  277. 

Religion,  task  of,  41;  germ  of, 
286. 

Resurrection,  as  an  element  of 
eschatology,  84;  in  Jewish 
thought,  210. 

Resurrection  of  Jesus,  objections  to, 
ICO  f.;  fact  of,  159;  signifi- 
cance of,  201,  234-238;  argu- 
ments for,  224-228;  nature  of, 
228-233;  significance  of,  236  f. 

Reward  and  punishment  in  the 
gospel,  247. 

Sacrifice,  animal,  as  presupposed 
by  the  gospel,  30. 

Salvation,  273,  287  f. 

Satan,  author  of  evil,  37;  deliver- 
ance from,  and  its  modern 
equivalent,  140  f. 

Schopenhauer,  154. 

Sermon  on  the  Mount,  practica- 
bility of,  259. 

Sin,  defined,  165  f.;  in  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus,  161  f.;  in  the  teach- 
ing of  Paul,  164  f.;  pleasures  of, 
169;     as   a   violation   of    God's 


INDEX 


331 


will,  175  f.;  and  death,  177; 
punishment  of,  176  f.;  salva- 
tion from,  180  f.;  forgiveness  of, 
200  f. 

Social  solidarity,  belief  in,  by  the 
modern  man,  48. 

Society,  not  final  and  of  evolution, 
245;    a  means  to  freedom,  245. 

Sovereignty  of  God,  modern  equiva- 
lent of,  81-82. 

Spiritual    life,    as   related    to    the 


gospel,  77,  87-89;  social  con- 
tent of,  121,  299  f.;  a  life  of 
love,  293;  its  freedom,  282  f.; 
democracy  of,  284;  and  the 
natural  order,  302;  heroism  of, 
302. 

Tolerance,  limitation  of,  306  f . 

Virgin  birth  of  Jesus,  129-132. 
Von  Hartmann,  153,  156. 


THE   CHURCH    AND   THE    CHANGING 

ORDER 

By  Dr.   SHAILER  MATHEWS 

Professor  of  New  Testament  History  and  Interpretation 
in  the  University  of  Chicago 

Cloth  izmo  $r.§o  net 

"...  a  most  interesting  and  valuable  contribution  to  the  litera- 
ture of  a  subject  that  is  growing  in  popular  attention  every  day. 
While  among  the  deeply,  really  religious  and  genuinely  scientilic 
there  is  no  conflict  or  antagonism  v^'here  even  there  is  not  accord, 
this  unfortunately  is  not  commonly  the  case  among  the  masses  who 
have  only  caught  the  forms  of  religious  and  scientific  knowledge 
without  their  spirit.  This  book  is  addressed  much  more,  it  seems, 
to  the  religious  than  the  scientific,  possibly  because  the  latter  have 
the  less  need  for  repentance.  Those  who  are  troubled  in  any  way 
at  the  seeming  conflict  between  the  demands  of  faith,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  experiences  of  their  own  reason  and  the  problems  of 
modern  social  and  industrial  life  will  find  here  much  sage,  illumi- 
nating, and  practical  counsel."  —  Eventing  Post. 


Other  Books  by  Professor  Mathews 

THE  SOCIAL  TEACHINGS  OF  JESUS 

AN  ESSAY  IN  CHRISTIAN  SOCIOLOGY 

Clotk  izmo  $1.50  net 

"The  author  is  scholarly,  devout,  awake  to  all  modern  thought, 
and  yet  conservative  and  preeminently  sane."  —  Congregationalist, 


PUBLISHED    BY 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York 


NEW  TESTAMENT  HANDBOOKS 

Each  $1.00  net 
Edited  by  SHAILER  MATHEWS 

Professor  of  New  Testament  History  and  Interpretation 
in  the  University  of  Chicago 

The  History  of  New  Testament  Times  in  Palestine 

The  Congregationallst  says  of  Prof.  Shailer  Mathews's  "The  Social 
Teachings  of  Jesus " :  "Rereading  deepens  the  impression  that  the 
author  is  scholarly,  devout,  awake  to  all  modern  thought,  and  yet  con- 
servative and  preeminently  sane.  If,  after  reading  the  chapters  dealing 
with  Jesus'  attitude  toward  man,  society,  the  family,  the  state,  and 
wealth,  the  reader  will  not  agree  with  us  in  this  opinion,  we  greatly  err 
as  prophets." 

The  History  of  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament 

Prof.  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis, 
Union  Theological  Seminary. 

Professor  Vincent's  contributions  to  the  study  of  the  New  Testament 
rank  him  among  the  first  American  exegetes.  His  most  recent  publica- 
tion is  "  A  Critical  and  Exegetical  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  to  the 
Philippians  and  to  Philemon"  ("  International  Critical  Commentary"), 
which  was  preceded  by  a  "  Students'  New  Testament  Handbook," 
"  Word  Studies  in  the  New  Testament,"  and  others. 

The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament 

Prof.  Henry  S.  Nash,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Interpretation, 
Cambridge  Divinity  School. 
Of  Professor  Nash's  "  Genesis  of  the  Social  Conscience,"  The  Outlook 
said :  "  The  results  of  Professor  Nash's  ripe  thought  are  presented  in  a 
luminous,  compact,  and  often  epigrammatic  style.  The  treatment  is  at 
once  masterful  and  helpful,  and  the  book  ought  to  be  a  quickening  influ- 
ence of  the  highest  kind  ;  it  surely  will  establish  the  fame  of  its  author 
as  a  profound  thinker,  one  from  whom  we  have  a  right  to  expect  future 
inspiration  of  a  kindred  sort." 


PUBLISHED    BY 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York 


NEW  TESTAMENT  HANDBOOKS  —  Cbn^rnt/ec/ 


Introduction  to  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament 

Prof.  B.  WiSNER  Bacon,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Interpretation, 
Yale  University. 

Professor  Bacon's  works  in  the  field  of  Old  Testament  criticism  include 
"The  Triple  Tradition  of  Exodus,"  and  "The  Genesis  of  Genesis,"  a 
study  of  the  documentary  sources  of  the  books  of  Moses.  In  the  field 
of  New  Testament  study  he  has  published  a  number  of  brilliant  papers, 
the  most  recent  of  which  is  "The  Autobiography  of  Jesus,"  in  the 
American  Journal  of  Theology, 


The  Teaching  of  Jesus 

Prof.  George  B.  Stevens,  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale 
University. 

Professor  Stevens's  volumes  upon  "The  Johannine  Theology,"  "The 
Pauline  Theology,"  as  well  as  his  recent  volume  on  "  The  Theology  of 
the  New  Testament,"  have  made  him  probably  the  most  prominent 
writer  on  biblical  theology  in  America.  His  new  volume  will  be  among 
the  most  important  of  his  works. 


The  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

Prof.  E.  P.  Gould,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Interpretation,  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

Professor  Gould's  Commentaries  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark  (in  the  "  In- 
ternational Critical  Commentary")  and  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians 
(in  the  "American  Commentary")  are  critical  and  exegetical  attempts 
to  supply  those  elements  which  are  lacking  in  existing  works  of  the  same 
general  aim  and  scope. 

"  An  excellent  series  of  scholarly,  yet  concise  and  inexpensive  New 
Testament  handbooks." —  Christian  Advocate,  New  York. 

"  These  books  are  remarkably  well  suited  in  language,  style,  and  price, 
to  all  students  of  the  New  Testament."  —  The  Congregationalist,  Boston. 


PUBLISHED    BY 

THE  MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS 

By  the  Rev.  WALTER  RAUSCHENBUSCH 

Professor  of  Church  History  in  Rochester  Theological  Seminary 

Cloth  izmo  $1.^0  7iet 

"  It  is  of  the  sort  to  make  its  readers  feel  that  the  book  was  bravely 
written  to  free  an  honest  man's  heart ;  that  conscientious  scholarship 
and  hard  thinking  have  wrought  it  out  and  enriched  it ;  that  it  is  written 
in  a  clear,  incisive  style ;  that  stern  passion  and  gentle  sentiment  stir  at 
times  among  the  words,  and  keen  wit  and  grim  humor  flash  here  and 
there  in  the  turn  of  a  sentence.  It  is  a  book  to  like,  to  learn  from,  and, 
though  the  theme  be  sad  and  serious,  to  be  charmed  with."  —  N.  Y. 
Times'  Sat.  Review  0/  Books. 

THE   APPROACH   TO   THE    SOCIAL   QUESTION 

An  Introduction  to  the  Study  oj"  Social  Ethics 

By  FRANCIS  GREENWOOD  PEABODY 

Plummer  Professor  of  Christian  Morals  in  Harvard  University 

Decorated  cloth  covers,  gilt  top        Index,  viii  + 210  pages        $r.2£  net 

In  a  highly  engaging  manner  the  author  sets  forth  the  ways  which 
lead  to  a  philosophy  of  the  Social  Question  as  he  sees  them  and  then  by 
considering  each  one  of  these  ways,  he  proceeds  to  a  final  recognition 
of  the  religious  significance  of  the  questions  which  are  vexing  the  society 
of  to-day. 

THE  ETHICS  OF  JESUS 

By  HENRY  CHURCHILL  KING,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

President  of  Oberlin  College 

Cloth  121710  $i'50  ^^t 

In  this  volume  President  King  analyzes  the  teachings  of  Jesus  on  the 
fundamenttil  questions  of  morality  and  sets  forth  as  clearly  as  possible 
the  standard  of  personal  behavior  that  is  inculcated  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. He  shows  that  "  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus 
deals  with  the  simplest  principles  of  the  ethical  and  religious  life,"  and 
by  analyzing  these  teachings  he  brings  out  "  their  unity,  sweep,  and  in- 
spiration. 


PUBLISHED    BY 

THE   MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York 


DATE    DUE 

1 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S  A 

eton  Theological  Sen 


1    1012  0101 


0  3473 


^w^ 


